The Quigley Book

[Jet Black]

has anyone actually read any more of it than dave and AiG quote? I know what AiG are like and tbh I don't trust them to correctly represent what Quigley was saying.

[SteveF]

There's a copy in my library. I'll pop over this afternoon and have a look.

[Jet Black]

It would certainly be interesting to see the context of the quote, especially given its age, and what quigley says about identification of varves/non-varved laminar sequences.

[Dave Hawkins]

I agree. Thanks Steve.

[SteveF]

Right, so there are 4 pages on varves in glacial environments (including piccies). I can't be bothered to type the whole lot out and it would probably be against copyright anyway.

It is split into three sections and is pretty standard stuff. We have (in this order):

- Varved clays in proglacial lakes

- Varved and laminated clays in postglacial lakes

- Varved clay structure

The part that Oard quotes from comes from the first of these sections. I'll type out the full paragraph in which this quote appears. Firstly, Oard:

It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as “varved.” There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units ... without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation

the full paragraph is:

It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as “varved.” There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units (Fig. 6.8) without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation. The formation of varved silty-clays requires the cessation of melt runoff into the lake during winter to create a closed lake system in which precipitation of clay particulates can take place. In many cases where large ice lobes of glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continuously resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. These turbidity currents deposit single or multiple graded (fining up) laminae (Fig. 6.8) and clay laminae may be thin or non-existent as a result of infrequent quiet water conditions in proximal areas. Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition (Ashley, 1975).

Note that this is mainly specific to this particular depositional environment. The next section says:

Current regimes and sedimentary conditions were different in postglacial freshwater lakes no longer in contact with the ice front. Suspended sediment loads were greatly reduced (probably less than 0.1 g/L) and under such conditions, streams enter lakes as overflows and interflows (Fig. 6.7B). Heavy-density bottom flows would only occur during spring floods or as products of slumping.

Present-day sedimentation in Hector Lake, Alberta (Smith, 1978) probably reflects conditions in many postglacial lakes. During the summer, warm stream water with its suspended sediment enters the lake as overflows and interflows, overriding heavier cold water (Fig, 6.9). Even during reduced winter stream flow, the very cold (~0degreesC) stream water overflows heavier 4degreeC water in the lake. Deposition of sediments is largely by year-round settling with silt and fine sand settling out during the summer and clay during the winter. Smith (1978) reports classical varve couplets in Hector Lake near the inlet delta where there is adequate sediment to produce them but the varves rapidly decrease in thickness with distance, becoming thin laminae or even massive clays only 2km from the inlet. This rapid attenuation is largely related to the inefficiency of overflows and interflows as carriers of sediment along with the small sediment loads. (See also Gilbert and Shaw, 1981).

[Febble]

This, I like:

Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.

[Pappy Jack]

This, I like:

Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.
Colour me surprised.

[Jet Black]

+rep for steve. Thanks for that.

just out of interest, how different did fig 6.8 look to sequences like suigetsu?

[SteveF]

It's a different system, so not really a meaningful comparison. However, they look reasonably different. One of them is completely different; indeed it's so obviously not varved, just from simple inspection, that I doubt anyone ever believed it was (it's probably just there to illustrate the point). The other looks a bit more regular at first glance.

[Jet Black]

It's a different system, so not really a meaningful comparison. However, they look reasonably different. One of them is completely different; indeed it's so obviously not varved, just from simple inspection, that I doubt anyone ever believed it was (it's probably just there to illustrate the point). The other looks a bit more regular at first glance.

That's a good point. Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff.

So not only is the quigley quote not about the same sorts of lakes, but it doesn't say what dave thinks it says.

[Dave Hawkins]

This, I like:

Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.Oh brother. Give the conspiracy theory a rest. Did you so soon forget that the early investigators of Three Sisters Lake also had criteria? And it turned out to be wrong?

[Jet Black]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

<post duplicated and moved here for the ice age discussion - Jet Black>

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

[Lucretius III]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

Funny in a way but also pathetic really,just what I have come to expect from Dave.

[Febble]

This, I like:

Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.Oh brother. Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

Geez, Dave!

Oard was warning us (apparently) that we shouldn't regard all alleged varves as varves, presumably because if some alleged varves ARE varves, the earth is very old.

But he omitted the part that told us how to tell the difference.

Doesn't need a conspiracy theory. Just a bit of elementary deduction, dear Watson.

Did you so soon forget that the early investigators of Three Sisters Lake also had criteria? And it turned out to be wrong?

I'm starting to wonder whether you have actually READ that paper. Did you?

[Jet Black]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?



err... what does that have to do with anything? are you going to tell us that all the post An-Ei layers are glacial runoff now,? Are you going to do a Lillooet on me again?

[SteveF]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?

[Dave Hawkins]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

[Febble]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

What you need to posit is for there to be vastly more data unpublished than are published, and for all those data to be wildly discrepant.

What you need, in other words, is not "bias" but widespread, organised fraud.

Pretending that mere "bias" will do the trick won't work. If you doubt me, then be specific about how you think the alleged bias works in your favour. I know about bias, Dave, and I know the kinds of methods used to detect it.

Please be specific, or retract.

[SteveF]

No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

I'm not aware of any evidence for it. I'm not an expert on the glacial stratigraphy of Japan, but I' under the impression it mainly involves mountain glaciation. For example:

Ono, Y et al. (2003) Present and last-glacial Equilibrium Line Altitudes (ELAs) in the Japanese high mountains. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, 47, 217-236.

Plots of present ELAs in Kamchatka Peninsula based on 317 firn-line measurements and 5 mass-balance studies revealed that the ELA has a steep gradient, rising inland from the Pacific coast, the main source of moisture, being toward the Sea of Okhotsk. In the Japanese high mountains, present perennial snow patches decrease in altitude steeply towards the Japan Sea, the main source of moisture, from the Pacific side, suggesting also a steep gradient of the hypothetical ELA over Japan. Calculation of the hypothetical ELA attempted on the basis of summer (JJA) air temperature and winter precipitation gives a value of 2970 m at Kuranosuke Cirque in the Northern Japanese Alps, and 4192 m on Mt. Fuji. The distribution of glacial landforms reveals that a similarly steep ELA gradient also existed in the last glacial period, suggesting a strong influence of the winter monsoon and the role of the Japan Sea as the main source of moisture. Tephrochronological studies reveal that glaciation occurred in the Japanese high mountains in MIS 6 (or 8), 5d, 4, 3 and 2, but the resolution of dating of tephra is not sufficient to determine whether the maximum advance occurred in MIS 6, (8), or 5d. The ELA depression during the last glaciation was much greater in MIS 3 and 4 than in MIS 2, reflecting a drastic decrease of snowfall in the latter. The major factor causing glacier fluctuations in the Japanese high mountains is sea surface temperature changes in the Japan Sea, controlled by sea-level changes and sea-ice extent.

Note the ELAs at many thousands of metres. Suigetsu is next to the sea. There is, of course, the complete absence of evidence in the Suigetsu sediments for glacial activity.

[Jet Black]

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

Bullshit, there were 2 ice ages and no. 3 is coming in 2009.

your name always makes me think of "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"

[Jet Black]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

so they accidentally threw the results away?

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?

[Pappy Jack]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?
Yes, but then Dave has to divert attention from the fact that Quigley does not appear to support the Oard/Hawkins view quite as much as he was presented as doing.

[Febble]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?
Yes, but then Dave has to divert attention from the fact that Quigley does not appear to support the Oard/Hawkins view quite as much as he was presented as doing.


Quigley doesn't support it AT ALL. Quigley is explaining how to distinguish varves from non-varves, and telling engineers off for not doing so.

By Quigley's criteria, all the varves that have been mentioned in connection with anti-YEC arguments are varves.

[VoxRat]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

No, Dave, there is zero evidence that there was only one ice age. Go try (and fail) to find evidence that there was only one ice age.

This is very much in line with the analysis of tactics (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) I brought up yesterday.

It's a pattern: in the midst of some discussion (in which reality is closing in on him) Dave will drop a completely off-the-wall, indefensible "BTW".

I don't know whether the motivation is to distract from the argument that's not going so well, or to slip another bit of nonsense "into evidence" - hoping that, since people are focussing on whatever the real point of the argument is, no one will bother to contest it, and he can therefore regard his "BTW" point as being made.

[Pappy Jack]

.....Interesting by our "friend "Oard again


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit

Nice reference. Not wishing to derail, but I see Oard uses the tried and tested 'evilutionists can't fully explain X, therefore Creationism is right' argument by implication:
What would trigger or sustain such a dramatic climate change that would persist for thousands of years? David Alt of the University of Montana in Missoula recently admitted, “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

[Pappy Jack]

Yes, but then Dave has to divert attention from the fact that Quigley does not appear to support the Oard/Hawkins view quite as much as he was presented as doing.


Quigley doesn't support it AT ALL. Quigley is explaining how to distinguish varves from non-varves, and telling engineers off for not doing so.

By Quigley's criteria, all the varves that have been mentioned in connection with anti-YEC arguments are varves.
I know, I was just being mildly ironical for Dave's entertainment ;).

[Febble]

Ice Age stuff split to here (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1011).

[ninewands]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.
Dave, reporting "biased results" after manipulating them to agree with a preconceived notion of the "right answer" (i.e., lying) IS fraud. It's also enough to get an AMS lab (which is NOT an inexpensive equipment installation) blown completely out of the business when they are caught doing it.

[ninewands]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

<post duplicated and moved here for the ice age discussion - Jet Black>
Dave, the LAST Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago in North America. It was, I believe, the last Kitagawa paper that intentionally extended the time frame they were examining back into the last glacial period to see if the varve chronology might be valid that far back. Guess what ... the 14C dating said it was.

[Jet Black]

http://orvillelloyddouglas.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/robert-mugabe1.jpg

Mugabe says: "Fiddling results isn't fraud, we're just doing the right thing"

[Jet Black]

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/george-w-bush-picture.jpeg

Bush says: "Fiddling results isn't fraud, we're just doing the right thing"

[Jet Black]

http://statehousekenya.go.ke/presidents/kibaki/images/kibaki2003.jpg

Kibaki says: "Fiddling results isn't fraud, we're just doing the right thing"

[RAFH]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

Yes, I do.

But frankly, where do you think davey, Teh Great Bluffoon davey of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all) got the idea? He's just parroting our chorus. Just another example of his projection.

[RAFH]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

Ah, I see, just like you do, eh? More projection. Have you ever considered renting yourself out to the movie industry?

[RAFH]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?
Yes, but then Dave has to divert attention from the fact that Quigley does not appear to support the Oard/Hawkins view quite as much as he was presented as doing.

Exactamundo!

This is what davey always does. When he gets tossed over, he just lets loose with an offhand remark to distract from his FAIL.

[VoxRat]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.What utter nonsense.

If researchers are discarding data, it's fraud.
If such fraud is in support of a common purpose, and all aimed at a common goal (i.e. supporting a common preconceived conclusion) it's systematic.

And that's exactly what Dave has alleged.
Q.E.fD.

[RAFH]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

No, Dave, there is zero evidence that there was only one ice age. Go try (and fail) to find evidence that there was only one ice age.

This is very much in line with the analysis of tactics (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) I brought up yesterday.

It's a pattern: in the midst of some discussion (in which reality is closing in on him) Dave will drop a completely off-the-wall, indefensible "BTW".

I don't know whether the motivation is to distract from the argument that's not going so well, or to slip another bit of nonsense "into evidence" - hoping that, since people are focussing on whatever the real point of the argument is, no one will bother to contest it, and he can therefore regard his "BTW" point as being made.

Either way, he figures he wins. Unless, of course, both the original STOOPID and the new STOOPID and the tactic are all pursued hotly, as is happening. Poor daveykins, he just can't win.

[Obd]

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.What utter nonsense.

If researchers are discarding data, it's fraud.
If such fraud is in support of a common purpose, and all aimed at a common goal (i.e. supporting a common preconceived conclusion) it's systematic.

And that's exactly what Dave has alleged.
Q.E.fD.

I think the main reason Dave doesn't regard this as fraud is that this is exactly the way YECs 'practice science'. They cherrypick data and discard whatever doesn't fit into their worldview. Unlike in regular science where discarding data because it contradicts your hypothesis is a deadly sin, it's actually a common practice in 'scientific creationism'.

[RAFH]

.....Interesting by our "friend "Oard again


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit

Nice reference. Not wishing to derail, but I see Oard uses the tried and tested 'evilutionists can't fully explain X, therefore Creationism is right' argument by implication:
What would trigger or sustain such a dramatic climate change that would persist for thousands of years? David Alt of the University of Montana in Missoula recently admitted, “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.”

Uh, it gets cold?

Actually, if you think about it, what really triggers them is it gets hot, in the tropics or even temperate zones, so there will be lots of water evaporated so it can be transported (via tropical storms) to someplace where it is not so hot and condenses out as frozen precipitation which then doesn't get enough of a chance to melt off each summer, possibly due to high cloud cover blocking/reflecting sunlight. Perhaps helped out by volcanic or impact events that toss up a lot of dust and stuff like Sulfur DiOxide.

Once large areas get glaciated, the cold ice mass cools the air over it and a high pressure zone of cold air dropping and cooling more than the adabatic heating, particularly once it gets in contact with the ice mass and then it flows off the ice into the surrounding countryside, a cold dry wind that chills things even more, prepping the advance of the ice. As long as the supply of precipitation holds up, the glaciers will advance. When it dies off, the glaciers will start to retreat.

Sea Ice is different as it's not based on precipitation but basically involves the same cooling mechanism, lack of sunlight abetted by changes in currents (ie-previously warm currents failing or redirecting and/or cold currents establishing or being redirected to the sea ice leading edges). As the polar air temps drop and sunlight is reduced and either warm currents abate and cold currents abet, the sea ice extends and reflects more and more sun light which acerbates the situation. It grows in the dark of winter and recedes in the sun of summer. But the ice reflects a lot of the sunlight already, and it sucks down a cold wind that blows off the ice and if there are cold currents surfacing at the leading edges, it won't recede as much as it grew during the winter. And so it grows year on year until the currents change.

[JonF]

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.
It appears that it's physically impossible for them to bias the results to obtain what we see. Until you address the many lines of evidence that lead us to this conclusion, which evidence has been posted so many times, you have no argument.

And we've all seen you run like a whipped puppy from the thread that so thoroughly exposed your lies about what Dr. Bertsche "admitted".

[JonF]

I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.What utter nonsense.

If researchers are discarding data, it's fraud.
If such fraud is in support of a common purpose, and all aimed at a common goal (i.e. supporting a common preconceived conclusion) it's systematic.

And that's exactly what Dave has alleged.
Q.E.fD.

I think the main reason Dave doesn't regard this as fraud is that this is exactly the way YECs 'practice science'. They cherrypick data and discard whatever doesn't fit into their worldview. Unlike in regular science where discarding data because it contradicts your hypothesis is a deadly sin, it's actually a common practice in 'scientific creationism'.
Absolutely. Dave thinks lying and cheating and God knows what, pretty much anytheng, is OK 'cause he's got his get-out-of-Hell-free card and he's doing it in a "good cause". He doesn't even have a concept of moral or ethical behavior.

[Dave Hawkins]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

so they accidentally threw the results away?

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

[ck1]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VoxRat]

"I'm not accusing them of fraud! I'm just accusing them of fraud!"

[Coleslaw]

The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful.

I knew we'd convince him sooner or later.

[Constant Mews]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?
Sorry, Dave. You have presented no evidence that Lake Suigetsu is a product of glacial run-off.

Do try again when you have some actual evidence, won't you? That's a good ape.

[Constant Mews]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

You just said that they are committing fraud. Or they are incompetent. Which is it, Dave? Why is that your sole answer to why all of science is against your anti-Christian interpretation of the Bible is to accuse tens of thousands of hard-working folks of dishonesty and incompetence? Exactly how is that a Christian act?

[Constant Mews]

believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so.And this is an OUTRIGHT LIE. Present the evidence that scientists discard dating data in a widespread fashion.

Dave, you continue to make assertion after assertion of fraud, incompetence, and deceit against scientists. Yet you have never once backed up any of those assertions.

This board is trying to keep a high standard. If you make such assertions, you need to back them up. Otherwise, we must presume that you are lying.

Evidence, Dave. I know you don't understand what it is, nor what it looks like, but you're going to need to produce it.

Get cracking, ape.

[Febble]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

See, Dave, this is what you don't get. Yes, scientists do occasionally "discard" datapoints from their analyses where there is evidence that the discrepant datapoint has something usual about it. To do otherwise would give an invalid result. Google "outliers" if you want to know more. But they DON'T discard it from the REPORT. They REPORT what they did. That's in the boring part of the paper you probably skip over (the Methods section). That's why your suggestion that there are far more discrepant datapoints than the ones Woodmorappe found is, whether you recognise it or not, an accusation of willful, intentional deception.

You cannot UNINTENIONALLY drop a discrepant datapoint. You do it INTENTIONALLY, and you REPORT WHAT YOU DID, and WHY YOU DID IT.

I am resorting to ALL CAPS because many people have said this many times, and you appear not to read these posts.

Scientists HAVE to report ALL the data they collect, or they are COMMITTING FRAUD.

And if they simply "unintentionally" omit to do this, then they are being GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

And no scientist can risk being either incompetent of fraudulent. The "risk" attached to getting a different result to the one you predicted is non-existent. It happens all the time. Scientists test hypotheses. If they hypotheses always passed the test, we wouldn't be doing science. We deliberately set a high bar. We don't mind (much) if our data doesn't reach it. We actually like it when we get a SIGNIFICANT unexpected result (paper in Nature).

WE DO MIND BEING SACKED FOR INCOMPETENCE or FRAUD, because it means the END of our CAREERS.

Now, do you get it?

[Jet Black]

Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing.


of course it is. If I get a load of results and chuck away all the ones that don't agree with my preconceptions, and then tell people that I found that my preconceptions were right according to the results, then I have willfully and intentionally deceived people - what I have said would be a blatant lie, because in reality, the results did not agree with me.


I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so.

hold on, where are you getting this very widespread from now? Remember what you are alleging is that the majority of data points are discarded.

The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

But dave, there you refer only to a single dating mthod and implicitly to the KBS tuff in which there is justifiable reason to expect that the argon date of the tuff may not represent the actual age of the eruption, because the scientists could clearly see inclusions formed before the volcano exploded.

Remember that you are applying your claim right across the board, and saying that in every single dating method people are discarding almost all of the data. That's really fucking serious, because there are millions if not billions of published data points out there that are accepted as correct, and you are saying that there are even more than that which are wrong. This covers everything from Uranium-thorium dating, carbon dating, lead dating and so on. all of them are wrong, and all those people are only publishing a minority of the results that they actually get.

Are you really claiming that?

[Febble]

Yeah ^

Dropping outliers from an analysis (and reporting that you did so, and why) necessarily involves a tiny minority of datapoints (or they wouldn't be outliers). Dropping the vast majority of data points is so ridiculous, it is clear that Dave hasn't though it through.

It would be like taking your lawn mower once down the centre of your lawn, and claiming you'd mowed the entire lawn.

[Jet Black]

another issue to consider is the error bars. If the majority of points are off, the error bars should be huge. If they are not taking into account the off points when working out the error bars, then they are totally unjustified in claiming the bars that they do.

[Febble]

another issue to consider is the error bars. If the majority of points are off, the error bars should be huge. If they are not taking into account the off points when working out the error bars, then they are totally unjustified in claiming the bars that they do.

The accusation is ludicrous in itself, but even more ludicrous is the suggestion that it isn't necessarily deliberate.

It's fraud or nothing. People don't leave out the majority of their datapoints either by oversight, whatever their preconceptions. You get some over-influential datapoints, you say oh fuck, and you compute the leverage statistics (http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/textbooks/statistics/glosd.html#DFFITS).

And you report them.

[Jet Black]

yeah. If my prof found out that a paper I had published fiddled data like any of these claims, he'd sack me, and quite rightly so. Alot rides on those results; like recently we had a review by a panel of world experts to determine whether or not we were spending the money properly or not, and whether we should get any more. If they found that results were selectively published like this, they'd deny funding and over a hundred jobs would be lost and endless reputations tarnished.

The claim that most people are dumping most of their results, but "not intentionally - they're doing what they think is right" is quite frankly a load of crap. if people did that, we'd never actually find anything out, because it's the deviations from the results that contain new information about new things to look at.

I think Dave has a really twisted view of how science and scientists work.

[Lucretius III]

yeah. If my prof found out that a paper I had published fiddled data like any of these claims, he'd sack me, and quite rightly so. Alot rides on those results; like recently we had a review by a panel of world experts to determine whether or not we were spending the money properly or not, and whether we should get any more. If they found that results were selectively published like this, they'd deny funding and over a hundred jobs would be lost and endless reputations tarnished.

The claim that most people are dumping most of their results, but "not intentionally - they're doing what they think is right" is quite frankly a load of crap. if people did that, we'd never actually find anything out, because it's the deviations from the results that contain new information about new things to look at.

I think Dave has a really twisted view of how science and scientists work.


In Daveworld though the "panel of world experts" would also be in on the "not quite fraud" as well ,as they would be "eviloutionists" too.
No point in having a Grand Conspiracy if any potential whistle bowers are not involved as well .

[Faid]

Dave, forget the science behind it all for a moment. I know you are pretty deep into YECthought, so you might actually feel that hiding and discarding data that disagree with you is a logical thing to do, when you "KNOW" you are right.

But maybe I can get you to see this another way.

You used to be a businessman, right? Now, suppose you had a RM dating lab. You had all kinds of expensive equipment, personnel and supplies- and you went into business. Researchers started sending you samples to date, more and more samples as time went by, and you conducted the measurements...

And in each and every measurement, the results were all over the place. You get ages that differ thousands of years from the same sample, and all of them disagree wildly with the "expected age". Only by chance would you be able to get something close, from time to time.

Now tell me: Seeing such discordant results from your equipment, would you consider it proper business behavior to cherry-pick those few results that seem close to that "expected age", and hide all the rest as "excess whatever"?

I mean, YOUR equipment can't possibly be flawed, and the method itself can't be flawed (otherwise, you would be trying to make money over a completely useless method, right?), so cherry-picking would feel like the only reasonable thing to do, right?

Eagerly waiting for your response.

[VoxRat]

Eagerly waiting for your response.I've been eagerly awaiting porcine aeronautics for years.
So far, no luck.
But hope springs eternal in the rodent breast.

[Mike PSS]

Here's an example of a discordant date that IS published. The authors assign "contamination?" with a question mark.

Do they ignore the deviant result? Generally yes, specifically no.
Do they carry on with conclusions without considerring this data point? Generally yes. Specifically yes.

What Dave doesn't acknowledge in these discordant dates is that the error bars involved STILL invalidate an earth within the YEC paradigm. Like this graph the discordant date is STILL too old for a YEC world. But what it points out is that there exist data that doesn't always fall within the straight line set out by the experimenters hypothesis. For whatever reason.

23

[ericmurphy]

Fraud is willful, intentional deception.
Dave, explain how a scientist discarding results that don't fit into a preconceived view, without a detailed analysis of why those results don't fit, is not "willful, intentional fraud." That's what willful, intentional fraud is in the sciences. In "scientific creationism," getting your results to fit your expectations may be acceptable, but in real science, it's the worst thing you can possible do.

And you think the entire radiometric community does it, all the time. After all, according to you, every single radiometric date ever found to be more than 10,000 years old must be wrong, and that's the [i]majority of them.

I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.

So all scientists are just delusional, right, Dave? But you're not?

And where is your evidence that discarding of data is "widespread," Dave? You don't have any, do you? By definition you don't have any such evidence. If data were "discarded," you wouldn't know it existed, would you?

[Pappy Jack]

Fraud is willful, intentional deception.
Dave, explain how a scientist discarding results that don't fit into a preconceived view, without a detailed analysis of why those results don't fit, is not "willful, intentional fraud." That's what willful, intentional fraud is in the sciences. In "scientific creationism," getting your results to fit your expectations may be acceptable, but in real science, it's the worst thing you can possible do.......
From experience, 'getting your results to fit your expectations' is not just acceptable in "scientific creationism", it appears to be the norm - and it's one of the reasons Dave is convinced that because 'his' side does it as a matter of routine, the 'other' side must do it as well. No amount of evidence (a word Dave doesn't appear to understand the definition of) and reason seems likely to persuade him otherwise. He is also hampered by his demonstrated inability to read for comprehension rather than searching for quotemines and keywords that at first glance seem to support his arguments, a failing you have pointed out several times on various threads.

[Febble]

And where is your evidence that discarding of data is "widespread," Dave? You don't have any, do you? By definition you don't have any such evidence. If data were "discarded," you wouldn't know it existed, would you?

Well, there are ways, actually. There are several separate issues here: one is whether scientists are actually suppressing sampled data points WITHIN a given study. That is extremely unlikely, and would be unethical. However, biased sample selection CAN be a methodological issue, although of course it is one that the methodology used should seek to minimize, and, if inadequate, should be picked up on peer review. That's why blind testing is important (and why it is done). And if it isn't done, there are statistical methods that can be used to detect a biased sample - for example, if the variance is suspiciously low.

Another source of bias is publication bias. When people undertake meta-analyses, one of the important procedures is to try to find the "filing drawer" studies - studies that were done but not published for some reason. If this isn't done, then there will be a bias in favor of "significant" results - if you get a "significant" result (statistically speaking) you are more likely to get your study published than if it is "insignificant". And as the probability of getting a "significant" result is 1 in 20, if you set your significance criterion (alpha) at p<.05, then 1 in 20 studies will get a "significant" result purely by chance. But those studies will have a greater chance of getting written up and published.

However, there are also statistical methods for detecting this kind of publication bias. One is the "funnel plot". If you plot the results of all the published studies with effect size on the X axis and some measure of statistical power on the Y axis (sample size, noise control, etc), then in theory you should get an inverted funnel-shaped plot, with the powerful studies at the top converging on a narrow range of values likely to embrace the "true" value, and a much broader range of values on the bottom where there is much more statistical noise.

However, what often happens in certain domains (e.g drug efficacy studies) is that the small studies that got a weak effect don't get published, because they didn't have the statistical power to render the effect "significant". Whereas the small studies that (by chance) got a strong effect, do.

So instead of a symmetrical funnel, you get a sparse scattering of studies in the bottom left hand corner. This tells you that there is a publication bias in favor of "significant" findings, and leads to the paradox whereby the most striking results are those of the weakest studies.

HOWEVER - my experience is in the area of psychology and medicine, in which we have a very low signal-to-noise ratio. We would kill for plots like the Suigetsu radiocarbon date-by-depth plot. If that's the kind of signal-to-noise ratio you typically get from this kind of study, it is hard to think that ANY study in this domain, properly designed, would lack the statistical power to find the postulated effect.

The thing that struck me about the Woodmorappe (oh boy, I've derailed the thread again) "bad dates" plot that Glenn Morton did was that even the "bad dates" showed a powerful linear correlation between the expected and computed age.

So yes, sampling bias and publication bias exist. Let's not pretend it doesn't. But it CANNOT exist on the scale at which it MUST exist for Dave's surmise to have a leg to stand on, because Dave requires that MOST of the studies carried out contain MORE "bad" data points than good, and that ALL these bad data points have been suppressed.

As I said earlier, in one thread or other, it would be like mowing a single stripe in the lawn and claiming you'd mowed the entire lawn.

[JonF]

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's OK to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on Dave, the Suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?Fraud is willful, intentional deception. I don't think that's what scientists are doing. I believe the scientists who discard dating data (and this apparently is very widespread) truly believe that they are justified in doing so. The Old Earth paradigm is very powerful. I think they have truly convinced themselves that there's "excess argon" or whatever.
Discarding data because it does not conform to expectations is willful, intentional fraud. That's what you've accused the 14C labs of doing.

Discarding data without explicitly stated objective and testable reasons is also willful, intentional fraud. Since you have not even attempted to demonstrate that data is discarded for unstated or subjective or untestable reasons, you are accusing scientist such as Fitch and Miller of fraud.

Oh, and you owe a reply to http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=20148#post20148.

[Constant Mews]

Bumped for Dave to address the fact that he continues to claim thousands of scientists are engaged in fraud, deception, and incompetent behavior. As always when Dave has reached the point where he is required to provide support for his accusations of criminal behavior, he abandons the thread and simply pretends it no longer exists.

[SAWells]

Remember the South Korean cloning scandal? There you had a guy, senior professor, huge funding, lots of grants, world-leading research. According to Dave's social-constructivist view of science, everyone else should have kissed up and made damn sure their results matched his.

Meanwhile in reality, people all over the world tried to verify the claims, it didn't work, cue the audits.