Proposed experiment to test the accuracy of RM labs (split from "Varves Terminology is Unfortunate)

[JonF]

JonF, if I could match your $500 and find out something meaningful, I'd be interested.
OK, who else is in? I don't think $1,000 will be enough, but I'll see. Who's up to pledge to a professional collecting some 14 C samples while Dave watches, submitting them to a 14C lab with lies about their expected ages, and seeing what results?

Dave, if the real expected ages come back, will you pledge to stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old? I'll pledge that, if the fake expected ages come back, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy.

[Dave Hawkins]

JonF, if I could match your $500 and find out something meaningful, I'd be interested.
OK, who else is in? I don't think $1,000 will be enough, but I'll see. Who's up to pledge to a professional collecting some 14 C samples while Dave watches, submitting them to a 14C lab with lies about their expected ages, and seeing what results?

Dave, if the real expected ages come back, will you pledge to stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old? I'll pledge that, if the fake expected ages come back, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy.What, exactly are you proposing?

[JonF]

JonF, if I could match your $500 and find out something meaningful, I'd be interested.
OK, who else is in? I don't think $1,000 will be enough, but I'll see. Who's up to pledge to a professional collecting some 14 C samples while Dave watches, submitting them to a 14C lab with lies about their expected ages, and seeing what results?

Dave, if the real expected ages come back, will you pledge to stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old? I'll pledge that, if the fake expected ages come back, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy.What, exactly are you proposing?
A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old.

[JonF]

OK, who else is in? I don't think $1,000 will be enough, but I'll see. Who's up to pledge to a professional collecting some 14 C samples while Dave watches, submitting them to a 14C lab with lies about their expected ages, and seeing what results?

Dave, if the real expected ages come back, will you pledge to stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old? I'll pledge that, if the fake expected ages come back, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy.What, exactly are you proposing?
A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old.
Well, Dave? You've been crying for blind tests. Here's your opportunity. We've got $1,200 pledged and I bet we can get lots more. So?

Or do you have a counterproposal? If so, what is it?

[VoxRat]

What, exactly are you proposing?
A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old.
Well, Dave? You've been crying for blind tests. Here's your opportunity. We've got $1,200 pledged and I bet we can get lots more. So?

Or do you have a counterproposal? If so, what is it?Count me in:
I pledge $200

Well Dave?

[Constant Mews]

A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at leats 40,000 years old.
Well, Dave? You've been crying for blind tests. Here's your opportunity. We've got $1,200 pledged and I bet we can get lots more. So?

Or do you have a counterproposal? If so, what is it?Count me in:
I pledge $200

Well Dave?

I'll pledge $200. How much more do we need?

Well, Dave?

[damitall]

I'll bung in 500 of your "dollars". (With a bit of luck, it'll only cost me about £2.50 by the time anything gets done......but I'm serious about the pledge, and good for the cash)

[ck1]

Me too. $200.

[JonF]

I don't know how much it will cost ... a lot depends on how many people we can get to donate time and effort without tipping off the labs. Deadman may come up with some help ther.

I've been told that a test at a particular lab runs about US$1,000. I don't know if that's typical.

Meybe I can get some help from Dr. Bertsche.

Dave? Dave? Dave? Bueller?

[deadman_932]

UC Irvine Keck Labs has non-UC commercial dating and Geochron has higher rates:

http://www.ess.uci.edu/ams/Sample%20Submission%201.htm#pricelist $180.00 (Irvine)

http://www.geochronlabs.com/14c.html Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) (includes sample preparation & 13C correction) $575.00

[VoxRat]

UC Irvine Keck Labs has non-UC commercial dating and Geochron has higher rates:

http://www.ess.uci.edu/ams/Sample%20Submission%201.htm#pricelist $180.00 (Irvine)

http://www.geochronlabs.com/14c.html Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) (includes sample preparation & 13C correction) $575.00Well, heck!
That looks doable.
We've got the money...
Dave? Are you in?
If not, why not?

[Dave Hawkins]

I'm interested. What are we going to date?

[VoxRat]

I'm interested. What are we going to date?We want the sample to either be young and look old, or vice versa, since we want to see if the lab is guided by the actual data or appearances (or our "preconceived notions"). I defer to someone with archeological experience for that.

Deadman?

[perfessor]

I'm interested. What are we going to date?
This is way cool.

I would suggest two samples:

1) Something with a "known expected" age of ~15k ybp; lie to the lab with a "false expected" age of ~5k ybp.

2)Something relatively modern, but with a false expected age of ~15k ybp.

Should the samples go to two different labs? I wonder if they would think that the samples had been switched. But maybe that's ok. How would I know, I'm not a real professor.

What are we going to date? Good question. You can't exactly buy something 15,000 years old at the corner drugstore.

[deadman_932]

I'm sure I can get 15KYA + charcoal samples from European sites. Anything archaeological in the Americas that Dave is allowed to examine will be under 10KYA unless I accompany him. Dave may not like that part. Academically and scientifically valuable materials will not get into his hands.

In my view, the best solution on 12KYA+ material is dendro samples. I know two dendrologists working with Pleistocene materials.

Edit: the beauty of this is that Dave can contribute to good science and not Cretinism

[RAFH]

I'd suggest there be no possibility the labs could think the samples got mixed up some how. It should be a young sample, perhaps something less than 2000 years but more than 500 years with an 'expected' date that is old, maybe something like 10,000 years, and an older sample, say 60,000 or more that is 'expected' to be, say, 5000 years old. Maybe that is too big a difference, I really wouldn't know. I[d say Bertsche or

In any case, I'd also suggest the 'organization' requesting the datings have a somewhat plausible cover story. Otherwise somebody is going to suspicious and blow the test. I'm not sure what that would be. What I fear is the lab getting obviously wrong 'expected' dates and suspecting they are being set up. So I would also suggest at least one or two honest samples as well. I realize that costs more money, but you really should have a control sample.

[damitall]

We'll need a clear agrement as to what will be said and done by the "interested parties" once the results are in.

Whatever the details are of what is decided, I should like to see maximum publicity on the results.

This will be a major opportunity to pull the feathers of this particular canard and make sure its future ability to fly is severely limited.

[Febble]

Bearing in mind this:

Therefore acceptance of radiometric dating abrogates not merely a young earth, but also the six-day Creation and the Universal Deluge.

if the samples come back with dates that accord with scientific theory, even though the labs have been given misleading expected dates, will Dave accept the validity of radiometric dating, and therefore, as suggested by John Woodmorappe "abrogate[s] not merely a young earth, but also the six-day Creation and the Universal Deluge"?

Dave?

[Jet Black]

universal deluge? I thought it was only global.

[Martin B]

universal deluge? I thought it was only global.

Gotta explain the geology of Mars...

[Jet Black]

universal deluge? I thought it was only global.

Gotta explain the geology of Mars...

please, even linking the idea of the flood with mars sends shivers down my spine. I think it was Spiritdad or some other complete nutter like that who thought the "great wind" after the flood blew the water to mars.

[VoxRat]

Bearing in mind this:

Therefore acceptance of radiometric dating abrogates not merely a young earth, but also the six-day Creation and the Universal Deluge.

if the samples come back with dates that accord with scientific theory, even though the labs have been given misleading expected dates, will Dave accept the validity of radiometric dating, and therefore, as suggested by John Woodmorappe "abrogate[s] not merely a young earth, but also the six-day Creation and the Universal Deluge"?

Dave?My pledge of $200 is contingent on getting some kind of commitment from Dave, in advance, on at least admitting that radiodating is a valid technology, and retracting his claims about it, such as its being "the most bogus thing in modern science", or whatever his formulation was - if the results of this little experiment come out as we predict it will and he predicts it won't.

[Ray Moscow]

Frankly, I think you guys are offering to spend good money to educate someone who just ain't having it.

[Febble]

Frankly, I think you guys are offering to spend good money to educate someone who just ain't having it.

Well, I think we would need a commitment on my post above (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=30639&postcount=268), or something similar, before it would be worth spending a dime.

[Jet Black]

send the money to me. I'll do what the labs do and just send back the expected age that you send to me. I'll do it for 50% of whatever they offer.

[Jet Black]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.

[VoxRat]

Frankly, I think you guys are offering to spend good money to educate someone who just ain't having it.True enough. But it would make a great object lesson for "Lurkers" - in the larger sense.

Wouldn't it be great if Dave Hawkins, of Kids4Truth, Truthmatters.info, TriCity Ministries, and Tri-City Home Educators could famously contribute to the debunking of this canard for all the world to see? Wouldn't it be great if that becomes the one contribution to the whole "debate" he's most known for?

[damitall]

Frankly, I think you guys are offering to spend good money to educate someone who just ain't having it.True enough. But it would make a great object lesson for "Lurkers" - in the larger sense.

Wouldn't it be great if Dave Hawkins, of Kids4Truth, Truthmatters.info, TriCity Ministries, and Tri-City Home Educators could famously contribute to the debunking of this canard for all the world to see? Wouldn't it be great if that becomes the one contribution to the whole "debate" he's most known for?

It wouldn't be just for the benefit of Hawkins, but for the public at large - who would be able to see that radiometric dating was a valid discipline even when run blind under conditions agreed to by one of its most vociferous critics.

That's why max publicity would be important. It's also why it's important to try to carry this through - we have him over a barrel now, since he's stated he's "interested". He's going to lose credibility in any event - whether he cries off or whether he goes through with it.

[Dave Hawkins]

How about let's date a rock ... with the K-Ar method. Geochron shut their K-Ar lab down, but maybe there's another one somewhere? You all say K-Ar is reliable so it would be interesting to see if it is. Why not just repeat Snelling's test on a historic flow but fix all the things JonF imagines that Snelling did wrong in his test. And get all of you to agree that everything is being done properly.

[Dave Hawkins]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

[Ray Moscow]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Perhaps we should let someone comment who believes that it's possible that anything can be over 10,000 years old.

[Febble]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Silly billy. That's our end. We decide the expected age for each specimen, you randomise them WRT to sample, and the specimens get sent for testing with the randomised expected ages (well, that would be one way).

Then when we get the results we all check whether they results match our list or yours.

Well, that would be one reasonable methodology.

[Febble]

OK, here's a possible method.

We collect N samples. We estimate the age of each according to scientific theory, whether archaeological, geological, whatever.

We randomly assign a number to each sample, and create a master table with three columns.


Column one has the sample numbers ("Sample Number").
Column two has our estimated age of each sample ("True Expected Age").
Colum three has the same values as column two, but randomly shuffled ("Distractor Expected Age").


We all sign this, and deposit it in a bank vault.

We then prepare a second list containing only columns one and three, relabelling the Distractor Expected Age Column to read simply "Expected Age), and send it to the lab with the numbered samples.

The lab then tests the sample, and enters the results in an additional column ("Lab age")

We retrieve our first list from the bank. We then make two plots:


We plot Lab Age against True Expected Age
We plot Lab Age against Distractor Expected Age


Then we do the fun part:


If the first plot displays something like a 1:1 correspondence between the two sets of ages, we can conclude that despite the distractor ages, the lab confirmed our hypotheses about the true age of the samples.

If the second plot displays something like a 1: 1 correspondence between the two plots, we can conclude that the labs are defrauding us by simply giving us what they think we want.

If both plots show a positive linear correlation, we can conclude that the labs are trying to find the true age, but that if the results are off, they keep tweaking until they get something a bit closer to the supplied (and in this case distractor) expected ages.

If neither plot shows a positive linear correlation, we can conclude that their radiometric dating doesn't work at all.

If the result is any of 2-4, Dave wins. If the result is 1, Dave concedes that radiometric dating works, and, cf Woodmorappe, abrogates YEC.

However, there's another possible result:


True Expected Age may form some systematic but non-linear, or not 1:1, relationship with Lab Age.


If so, we write it up, Dave included, and send it to Nature..

[Obd]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.

[Febble]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.

But it doesn't matter how. That's our business. Dave's job is to see that they are randomly shuffled when they are sent to the lab.

[Obd]

How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.

But it doesn't matter how. That's our business. Dave's job is to see that they are randomly shuffled when they are sent to the lab.

Yea it is, but it might be interesting to clarify that the large bodies of scientific theories that allow a certain indication to be made about the range in which the age is expected to lie are Dave's "Assumptions about expected age".

[Febble]

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.

But it doesn't matter how. That's our business. Dave's job is to see that they are randomly shuffled when they are sent to the lab.

Yea it is, but it might be interesting to clarify that the large bodies of scientific theories that allow a certain indication to be made about the range in which the age is expected to lie are Dave's "Assumptions about expected age".

Sure. In fact it would be interesting to have a specific hypothesis for each sample, if the predictive methodologies were different.

[ninewands]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that either Joe or llanitedave qualifies. They're both WAY younger than that. They're probably contaminated, too.

[Febble]

Is it worth splitting this proposal out to a separate thread, do you think?

[Constant Mews]

Is it worth splitting this proposal out to a separate thread, do you think?Yes, I think so. It runs the danger of being lost as Dave ignores it. The mere fact that it will prove him wrong is enough to make him run in fear.

[Dave Hawkins]

we'll need to pick something that is not contaminated and is over 10,000 years old. I suggest putting one of the geologists on the case.How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Silly billy. That's our end. We decide the expected age for each specimen, you randomise them WRT to sample, and the specimens get sent for testing with the randomised expected ages (well, that would be one way).

Then when we get the results we all check whether they results match our list or yours.

Well, that would be one reasonable methodology.But if it's your 'end' ... how do we begin with that knowledge as JB suggests we do?

[Febble]

How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Silly billy. That's our end. We decide the expected age for each specimen, you randomise them WRT to sample, and the specimens get sent for testing with the randomised expected ages (well, that would be one way).

Then when we get the results we all check whether they results match our list or yours.

Well, that would be one reasonable methodology.But if it's your 'end' ... how do we begin with that knowledge as JB suggests we do?

With a hypothesis, as always. The "expected age" is a hypothesis. The RM dating allows us to test that hypothesis.

But this experiment is a kind of meta experiment. Within it are embeded a series of straightforward hypotheses regarding the age of the samples. But we are not especially interested in those hypotheses (although they could be individually interesting) because we assume we are dealing with pretty well supported hypotheses anyway.

So at a meta level, we are testing two alternative meta-hypotheses, which makes it much more interesting than testing a single hypothesis against the null.


The first is the hypothesis that the hypothesised ages for each sample (based on whatever theory is relevant) will tend to be supported by the lab result (i.e. the hypothesis that the labs will tend to confirm the individual hypotheses, regardless of whether they have been bowled a googly by a fake ("distactor") "expected age".

The second alternative hypothesis is that the labs routinely bias their results in the direction of the given "expected age".


We also have the null hypothesis that the labs are not biased, but simply return ages that have no relationship to the sample. In other words that RM dating does not work at all.

But of course, embedded within meta-hypothesis (1) are the hypothesised ages (the "expected ages") of each sample.

[JonF]

How about let's date a rock ... with the K-Ar method. Geochron shut their K-Ar lab down, but maybe there's another one somewhere? You all say K-Ar is reliable so it would be interesting to see if it is. Why not just repeat Snelling's test on a historic flow but fix all the things JonF imagines that Snelling did wrong in his test. And get all of you to agree that everything is being done properly.
You want to run that test? Fine. Raise the money and do it. Don't forget to ensure that the lava is loaded with xenoliths; Ngauruhoe lava would be a good choice. It's going to cost a lot more thatn the test we're talking about, though.

Here we're discussing a procedure that will directly test one of your claims; that 14C labs return expected dates ratehr than what their equipment measures. Are you ready to test your claim? And live with the resutls?

[Dave Hawkins]

The ideal way to test for C14 would be to give the lab a leaf and say "Here, break this leaf into 1/500th leaf bits and test 10 of them or so. Some from the edges, some from the center, etc. and tell us the results." I suppose just giving them the leaf and not telling them the expected age might be OK though. Where would we get a good sample leaf?

How much would the K-Ar rock test cost?

[socle]

The ideal way to test for C14 would be to give the lab a leaf and say "Here, break this leaf into 1/500th leaf bits and test 10 of them or so. Some from the edges, some from the center, etc. and tell us the results." I suppose just giving them the leaf and not telling them the expected age might be OK though. Where would we get a good sample leaf?

:confused:

What hypothesis is your leaf experiment designed to test?

ETA: Febble has carefully spelled out a proposal, including specific criteria for deciding whether the results support your allegation of bias or not. How do we decide if the results of the leaf experiment support our case or yours?

[JonF]

The ideal way to test for C14 would be to give the lab a leaf and say "Here, break this leaf into 1/500th leaf bits and test 10 of them or so. Some from the edges, some from the center, etc. and tell us the results." I suppose just giving them the leaf and not telling them the expected age might be OK though. Where would we get a good sample leaf?
Are you seriously proposing that the results of testing that leaf ten times would differ noticeably?

How much would the K-Ar rock test cost?
Don't know offhand, Dave. I bet the expense would be in getting appropriate specimens; I don't know if there are any in the U.S. You might need to fly a geologist to the Phillipines. And I suppose you'd want to go, too, to oversee.

That's your experiment. You can start a thread to discuss it. Maybe your pal the head of a dating lab could tell you? You know, the one that you gave Snelling's paper to, for comment? And you haven't dared mention the result?

[Dave Hawkins]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ... No, my "buddy" never responded

[deadman_932]

I spent some time talking to people I've worked with yesterday, and the consensus is that no one I know in archaeo is currently working on anything North American that is over 10KYA (not surprising, it's a specialized area within a specialization).

Being realistic, there's two issues here:

1.) I personally doubt that Professor YEC will accept any results that don't conform to his view. As has been seen, honesty, ethics and integrity mean little to some people. This is a given, in my view -- it is something that has to be overcome. My first thought was dendro samples that could be tied into a master chronology, particularly since I know people working on a California oak study...BUT...I sincerely doubt this would ever be accepted by Professor YEC if it is over 10 KY old

2.) To overcome such tendencies, then the samples should be of a date range that Professor YEC sees as possible in his medieval mind. That seems to limit the possibilities to under 5000 years and tied to something of a dating technique that Professor YEC also accepts as valid. The only thing that immediately springs to mind is early writing. Cuneiform tablets. Hearth fires. Animal bones from tells, that sort of thing.

Gratefully, I have nothing to do with historical (as opposed to Pre-historic) archaeology. I also don't think Professor YEC would enjoy my presence although I have the ability not to radiate my contempt and dislike for his character. In short, my view of this situation leads me to the conclusion that I am not the person for this task, and I'm happy about that.

On a tangential note, I finally got a chance to see the movie "There Will Be Blood" last night, and I was amazed to see a young Professor YEC in a film set in the 1900's.

[Febble]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ... No, my "buddy" never responded

What you are now proposing would test something quite different: whether pieces from the same sample give consistent dates. We know that they don't, always - and that when they don't, this is an indication of contamination.

So what would this test demonstrate?

Your original contention was that labs tended to give results that were close to the "expected age" of the sample, because they knew in advance what was expected.

My proposal tests that contention - we give what I called "distractor" ages (the real expected ages, but randomly shuffled between samples) and see whether the lab returns the results closer to the distractor ages or results closer to the real expected ages.

If the first - your contention is supported. If the second, then you will need to retract your accusation that labs are influenced by the "expected ages" supplied with the samples.

[Susannah]

The ideal way to test for C14 would be to give the lab a leaf and say "Here, break this leaf into 1/500th leaf bits and test 10 of them or so. Some from the edges, some from the center, etc. and tell us the results." I suppose just giving them the leaf and not telling them the expected age might be OK though. Where would we get a good sample leaf?

:confused:

What hypothesis is your leaf experiment designed to test?

ETA: Febble has carefully spelled out a proposal, including specific criteria for deciding whether the results support your allegation of bias or not. How do we decide if the results of the leaf experiment support our case or yours?

I wonder; is it that Dave (1) doesn't understand the purpose of the proposed test, (2) doesn't have an elementary-school understanding of how to test a given hypothesis, or that (3) he is trying to sabotage the whole procedure with derails before it even gets started?

Maybe I should consider (4); all of the above.

(Oops! I forgot I wasn't in the peanut gallery. My bad. Sorry, Febble. Could you move this over there, please?)

[Pappy Jack]

......I personally doubt that Professor YEC will accept any results that don't conform to his view....
Or the structure of any proposal that he suspects may produce results that don't conform to his view. Which is pretty much what Susannah says above when she wonders if Dave will try
to sabotage the whole procedure with derails before it even gets started
Having seen Dave's interest in other proposed experiments fizzle and die when it appeared to me that they might not confirm his worldview, I think both DM and Susannah are most likely to be proven right.

[Febble]

The ideal way to test for C14 would be to give the lab a leaf and say "Here, break this leaf into 1/500th leaf bits and test 10 of them or so. Some from the edges, some from the center, etc. and tell us the results." I suppose just giving them the leaf and not telling them the expected age might be OK though. Where would we get a good sample leaf?

:confused:

What hypothesis is your leaf experiment designed to test?

ETA: Febble has carefully spelled out a proposal, including specific criteria for deciding whether the results support your allegation of bias or not. How do we decide if the results of the leaf experiment support our case or yours?

I wonder; is it that Dave (1) doesn't understand the purpose of the proposed test, (2) doesn't have an elementary-school understanding of how to test a given hypothesis, or that (3) he is trying to sabotage the whole procedure with derails before it even gets started?

Maybe I should consider (4); all of the above.

(Oops! I forgot I wasn't in the peanut gallery. My bad. Sorry, Febble. Could you move this over there, please?)

This thread is fine to post in, Susannah! It's only this one that we are reserving (for now) for Dave, Michael and Zadok:

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years? (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324)

[JonF]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ...
You're seriously proposing that testing different parts of a leaf will return significantly different results? That's mightly retarded. Dr. Bertsche wrote nothing that even hints at regular discarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, nor anything that hints at any iscarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, but he certainly made it clear that multiple tests on the same sample are done regularly, and some return consistent dates for all tests.

Do you think that the 12C/14C varies greately across a leaf? Or do you think that the equipment can't measure 12C/14C? Or do you think all samples are contaminated?

But we're discussing an experiment to test your claim that labs return "expected" dates rather than the dates measured by the equipment. Are you in for that experiment?

No, my "buddy" never responded
Give him a tickle. I want to see what he has to say.

[Febble]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ...
You're seriously proposing that testing different parts of a leaf will return significantly different results? That's mightly retarded. Dr. Bertsche wrote nothing that even hints at regular discarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, nor anything that hints at any iscarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, but he certainly made it clear that multiple tests on the same sample are done regularly, and some return consistent dates for all tests.

Do you think that the 12C/14C varies greately across a leaf? Or do you think that the equipment can't measure 12C/14C? Or do you think all samples are contaminated?

But we're discussing an experiment to test your claim that labs return "expected" dates rather than the dates measured by the equipment. Are you in for that experiment?

No, my "buddy" never responded
Give him a tickle. I want to see what he has to say.

Well, I'm not interested in an experiment to demonstrate something we know already, and which no-one disputes.

I'm interested in an experiment to test whether Dave's suggestion that labs returned the closest date they can get to the "expected age" provided with the sample and discard any others.

I think my proposal does that quite nicely, but I'm interested in any alternatives or tweaks or refinements or parameters.

[JonF]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ...
You're seriously proposing that testing different parts of a leaf will return significantly different results? That's mightly retarded. Dr. Bertsche wrote nothing that even hints at regular discarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, nor anything that hints at any iscarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, but he certainly made it clear that multiple tests on the same sample are done regularly, and some return consistent dates for all tests.

Do you think that the 12C/14C varies greately across a leaf? Or do you think that the equipment can't measure 12C/14C? Or do you think all samples are contaminated?

But we're discussing an experiment to test your claim that labs return "expected" dates rather than the dates measured by the equipment. Are you in for that experiment?

No, my "buddy" never responded
Give him a tickle. I want to see what he has to say.

Well, I'm not interested in an experiment to demonstrate something we know already, and which no-one disputes.
It appears that Dave's disputing it.

I'm interested in an experiment to test whether Dave's suggestion that labs returned the closest date they can get to the "expected age" provided with the sample and discard any others.
Yup, me too. Dave's other proposals belong in another topic.

I think my proposal does that quite nicely, but I'm interested in any alternatives or tweaks or refinements or parameters.
I just don't know how many samples we can afford to test.

[deadman_932]

Your overall proposal seems fine, Febble...as you say, at this point, it requires some detail that appears to be complicated really only by a few things:

1. Samples need to be identified and agreed upon by all parties. Does Professor YEC go to the mountain or does the mountain go to him? Will he be travelling to see and verify the validity of said samples? What manner of verification is required? In the case of materials tied to general time frames...well, there's the rub, yes?

2. Upon agreement of the nature of samples, agreed-upon labs must be notified of intent to send samples. They can be parcelled up and sent off after notifying (and paying) individual labs. "Distractor" Expected Ages are attached. See sample procedures at http://www.ess.uci.edu/ams/Sample%20Submission%201.htm for a rough guideline applicable for most labs.

I can try to poke around further by contacting people at UCLA that I'm most familiar with, but first things first: What supporting details would be required of samples? Is, for instance, association with writing the ONLY acceptable supporting method for ascertaining a date range that Professor YEC would agree to? I have no idea what goes on in such minds, but I'm fairly certain that little else other than narrow parameters would suffice.

The most difficult steps seem in the availability/cooperation of Professor YEC.

[JonF]

I don't see why we should need to date samples for which Dave agrees on the "expected age". IMHO any sample for which mainstream science considers there to be a well-established date is suitable. If Dave agrees that it's actually that old, that's just gravy. With or without his agreement on the reality of the "expected age", we can test whether a lab will return results close to the age we really expect, or will return results close to the age we tell them to expect.

[Febble]

I don't see why we should need to date samples for which Dave agrees on the "expected age".

Well, it would be better if they didn't. I mean, ideally, we would get a few varve samples, where our expected ages ranges from 300 - 20,000 years, shuffle the numbers and get the lab to test them. If the answers corresponded to the varve ages, and not to the shuffled ages, then Dave's argument that the correlation between radiocarbon age and putative varve age is merely an artefact of bias on the part of the labs would be sunk.

On the other hand, if the labs produced estimates that were bias in favour of the shuffled ages, he could fairly maintain that the only reasons the Curves Agree is that the labs make sure the results match the supplied estimates.

And so there would (he could argue) no reason to suppose that any sample was older than 6,000 years.

So I'd say the best thing would be to find a few samples where the scientists estimate the age to be what Dave would call pre-Flood, and pre-Creation, plus some more recent samples. It doesn't matter that Dave would contend they are all younger than 6,000 years. What matters is whether the lab results agree with whatever the scientists come up with.

IMHO any sample for which mainstream science considers there to be a well-established date is suitable. If Dave agrees that it's actually that old, that's just gravy.

Except, as I said, it would be a better test if we had some "pre-Flood" samples. Otherwise we will be back to "values were different before the Flood/Fall".

With or without his agreement on the reality of the "expected age", we can test whether a lab will return results close to the age we really expect, or will return results close to the age we tell them to expect.

True. We could test that with one sample. It would be a start. And a heck of a lot cheaper.

[ericmurphy]

I'm in for a hundred bucks (sorry; I'm spending all my money on new furniture, being a good consumer in this time of dire need), but only for a test of 14C dating, as outlined by Febble. I'm not interested in Dave dancing around which kinds of radiometric testing gets done. There are at least 40 different tests, and we could spend a year deciding on one. Radiocarbon dating, if accurate, is more than sufficient all by itself to obliterate Dave's young-earth claims. If Dave's willing to put up his own money to test his beliefs, I'm all for it.

(But I'll also predict that no matter what results come back, Dave will still stick with his YEC.)

[RAFH]

Yes, that's what I'm proposing ...
You're seriously proposing that testing different parts of a leaf will return significantly different results? That's mightly retarded. Dr. Bertsche wrote nothing that even hints at regular discarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, nor anything that hints at any iscarding of dates that don't come close to expected dates, but he certainly made it clear that multiple tests on the same sample are done regularly, and some return consistent dates for all tests.

Do you think that the 12C/14C varies greately across a leaf? Or do you think that the equipment can't measure 12C/14C? Or do you think all samples are contaminated?

But we're discussing an experiment to test your claim that labs return "expected" dates rather than the dates measured by the equipment. Are you in for that experiment?

No, my "buddy" never responded
Give him a tickle. I want to see what he has to say.

Well, I'm not interested in an experiment to demonstrate something we know already, and which no-one disputes.

I'm interested in an experiment to test whether Dave's suggestion that labs returned the closest date they can get to the "expected age" provided with the sample and discard any others.

I think my proposal does that quite nicely, but I'm interested in any alternatives or tweaks or refinements or parameters.

You've got a good protocol, but I would be concerned about several things:
1 - the expected dates should not be the scrambled real dates. This could lead the lab to believe there was simply a mix-up in the labeling and that could blow the whole test. They might communicate back to whoever is the project leader and ask for clarification which would automatically bugger the protocol.
2 - what if the lab, finding the test dates are out of whack with the expected dates, communicates back with the project leader to ask note there is a problem? How does that affect the validity of the test? I can see this being a possible out from the consequences as it could be an opportunity for the client and lab to reach an agreement on the lab date.
3 - There is no control on the dating. I would suggest there be an independent lab dating to verify whatever results are obtained, they would be given the same samples but with no instructions other than to date them the best they can. That means no expected dates, no expected ranges of dates, nothing. Simply, here is a sample, date it. I suppose if there is a serious problem with this, say it would incur significant cost, we could limit the samples to a range that is larger than the statistical error but still within a given protocol for contamination control and sample prep. This completely blind test would verify whatever results the primary lab results are. They would either agree with or disagree with the primary lab results.
4 - both parties need to sign, with witnesses and notarization, the agreed upon consequences for whatever results are obtained. I don't want to do this and then have one party or the other or even both back out on the agreement. They both need to commit in writing to the conditions and rules and consequences which should include a no-welching clause that stipulates legally enforceable consequences. I'm not talking about jail or such but certainly the rights of either party to fully disseminate the results and any welching by the other party. This would not allow any post hoc interpretations of the results. Perhaps a financial incentive, maybe a $1000 penalty or something of that nature. I really don't know, just suggesting.

[ericmurphy]

I don't see why we should need to date samples for which Dave agrees on the "expected age".

Not only do we not need do; we don't want to. Dave has maintained that radiocarbon dating over the past 4,500 years is roughly accurate. A valid test of Dave's YEC beliefs is at least one object which is older than Dave believes anything can be. Ideally, at least one object should have an expected (i.e., in accord with theoretical predictions) age of >10,000 years, which would make it too old to exist in Dave's cosmogony.

[Mike PSS]

Was it mentioned that one of the dated samples should have a date determined by other than 14C means?

Dendro, varve or ice core type of correllation would be sweet for a recent (5k to 10k) sample.

[deadman_932]

Considering the multiple examples (Fenton Hill, Ngauruhoe, and on and on and on..) where Creationists basically REFUSE to do the basic work that would DISCONFIRM their own hypotheses, as most scientists deem mandatory, there seems to be a pattern visible.

There seems little reason to be hopeful that "Professor YEC" will ever REALLY "search for the truth" in this or any other case.

Is it *possible* he might find the ethics and honor needed? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on that.

[Dave Hawkins]

Was it mentioned that one of the dated samples should have a date determined by other than 14C means?

Dendro, varve or ice core type of correllation would be sweet for a recent (5k to 10k) sample.Yes, it was mentioned and therein lies the crux of the problem.

[Mike PSS]

Was it mentioned that one of the dated samples should have a date determined by other than 14C means?

Dendro, varve or ice core type of correllation would be sweet for a recent (5k to 10k) sample.Yes, it was mentioned and therein lies the crux of the problem.

What, specifically, is the problem Dave?

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.
2) Send the sample into the lab, maybe two.
3) Include the wrong age of the sample you sent (or no age whatsoever).
4) See the result.

And I said to do this with a known age sample of 5k to 10k years where dendro or varve counts are VERY accurate.

So please be specific in your reply. No hand-waving please.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Was it mentioned that one of the dated samples should have a date determined by other than 14C means?

Dendro, varve or ice core type of correllation would be sweet for a recent (5k to 10k) sample.Yes, it was mentioned and therein lies the crux of the problem.
...and Dave revs up the engine on his escape moped.

http://www.bikechatforums.com/files/fat_guy_moped_small.jpg

Tell me you didn't see this dodge coming from our Davie-doo. :D:D:D

[deadman_932]

He's certainly doing the Davey-Dance in three other threads.

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1134&page=32
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1348
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1336&page=2

Why should this be different?

[Susannah]

(Oops! I forgot I wasn't in the peanut gallery. My bad. Sorry, Febble. Could you move this over there, please?)

This thread is fine to post in, Susannah! It's only this one that we are reserving (for now) for Dave, Michael and Zadok:

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years? (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324)

Yes, of course. I realized that when I got home this evening. Doh!

Sorry for taking up your time.

[Dave Hawkins]

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

[Constant Mews]

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

They're called calibration curves wee Davie. Something we've been discussing for two years now. It is moments like this, when you suddently play dumb, that we realizing that you're lying and stalling because you've recognized that this experiment will prove, in an inarguable fashion, that you are wrong about the labs lying; wrong about the massive fraud that you've accused thousands of scientists of; and wrong about the age of the world.

Once you've had your little melt-down, you might grow up and actually learn something about God's little invention, instead of your own ego.

[Constant Mews]

All of you - Dave included - should recognize that Dave will never actually agree to this experiment. He will argue and dispute and complain and obfuscate and lie and procrastinate, but he will never agree to any experiment that could prove him wrong.

On that I'm willing to wager a quite substantial sum.

[Pappy Jack]

All of you - Dave included - should recognize that Dave will never actually agree to this experiment. He will argue and dispute and complain and obfuscate and lie and procrastinate, but he will never agree to any experiment that could prove him wrong.

On that I'm willing to wager a quite substantial sum.
I think most of us know this already. It's instructive to watch the Hawkins' Hoedown around the issue, though.

[RAFH]

I like to watch dancing. I'm hoping davey will put on a marvelous show.

But first things first, I think we need a commitment from davey that he will honor the deal. No games, no crossed fingers behind his back, no "I didn't swear before gawd" or it's Sunday and you can't hold anyone to an oath on Sunday.

So davey, put it in writing that you are going to abide by the protocols. You haven't said that yet. You haven't said you'll commit to this and live with it come what may. Until you do, you look the fool. You look like you don't have any faith in your world view or in your gawd. I mean, would he really let you down? Could you handle it if he did?

[Febble]

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?

[Pappy Jack]

Like Eric, I am pretty boracic at the moment, but I will kick in $50 as a token gesture of support. Like VoxRat, I would want to see some kind of prior agreement from Dave regarding the consequences of the test(s). The cynical part of me still believes that Dave has no intention of going through with this and that I could happily pledge $5,000 to the fund confident in the knowledge that it will never be called on.

[JonF]

2 - what if the lab, finding the test dates are out of whack with the expected dates, communicates back with the project leader to ask note there is a problem? How does that affect the validity of the test? I can see this being a possible out from the consequences as it could be an opportunity for the client and lab to reach an agreement on the lab date.
The communication person should play dumb.

"I don't know, I''ll ask"

(a day or two later)

"I'm told that you should just report whatever you can measure as best as you can."

[JonF]

All of you - Dave included - should recognize that Dave will never actually agree to this experiment. He will argue and dispute and complain and obfuscate and lie and procrastinate, but he will never agree to any experiment that could prove him wrong.

On that I'm willing to wager a quite substantial sum.
Oh, I know. I'm not looking forward to explaining to my wife where that $500 went; but I don't expect to have to.

But if it acually comes off, I will; and therein lies the difference between Davie and people carrying out honest inquiry.

[JonF]

I may have lost track ... where do we stand now?

Me: $500
Dave: "if I could match your $500 and find out something meaningful, I'd be interested."
VoxRat: $200
Constant Mews: $200
damitall: $500
ck1: $200
ericmurphy: $100
Pappy Jack: $50
Black5: $100
Notta Skeptic: $100

Total: $2,450 if Dave signs up; if he doesn't sign up we ain't doing it.

That seems to be getting in the ballpark, if not there already, of what we'd need to do several samples andmaybe do one or more twice at different labs.

[Mike PSS]

Dave,
Why don't you comprimise here. Ask for a sample in the 4,000 to 5,000 ybp range that is independently dated by other means (written, archeological, dendro-...).

That way YOU kill two birds with one stone too.

You get to verify the constant 14C concentration in the atmosphere back to near the flood, something even R.H.Brown supports. Plus, you get to verify 14C dating accuracy.

Unfortunately you then have to throw out any and all models you've put together about pre-flood carbon because there is no way to accomodate this hypothesis if your 14C concentration is that high that long ago. A NEW paradigm in creationist models must be created, and you could be the one to start it.

So it looks like two samples are needed, near age (less than 10,000ybp) and far age (greater than say 15,000 ybp). And if YOU agree you could ask for that near age sample to be within that 5,000ybp range.

You just have to think out of the box sometimes Dave.

[Black5]

I'll kick in $100 if and only if the methodology is rigorous and agreed to by all specially Dishonest Dave. As long as there is no wiggle room to back out or mis-interpret the results.

That being said I have full confidence I won't have to open my wallet. There's no way Dave will agree to something which has the potential to prove him wrong.

Now prove me wrong Dave. So far you're betting your soul/ego/reputation on your beliefs. What's a few bucks to confirm them?

[Notta_skeptic]

I'll provide $100. I think a valid experiment would show Dave that he's wrong about at least one lab!

[Mike PSS]

I STILL want Dave to comment on this study.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI)
and
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI) (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ar izona.edu%2FVolume45%2FNumber2%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v 45_n2_v.pdf)

Actually, anyone comment on what differences the proposed test would accomplish compared to the samples given in these two studies (with the fifth one to be published in the next year).

ETA: Fixed it for ya PJ. Thanks.

[Pappy Jack]

^ Mike, your link is no good; I think there's an http// too much in it.

[JonF]

I STILL want Dave to comment on this study.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI)
and
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI) ("http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ar izona.edu%2FVolume45%2FNumber2%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v 45_n2_v.pdf)

Actually, anyone comment on what differences the proposed test would accomplish compared to the samples given in these two studies (with the fifth one to be published in the next year).
It would test whether 14C labs "adjust" their results to match expected dates when they do not know they are participating in such a test.

The tests you refer to tested whether 14C resutls are repeatable. Davie's multiple-samples-from-a-leaf idea is similar to but not as good as the tests already carried out

[Mike PSS]

I STILL want Dave to comment on this study.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI)
and
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI) (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ar izona.edu%2FVolume45%2FNumber2%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v 45_n2_v.pdf)

Actually, anyone comment on what differences the proposed test would accomplish compared to the samples given in these two studies (with the fifth one to be published in the next year).
It would test whether 14C labs "adjust" their results to match expected dates when they do not know they are participating in such a test.

The tests you refer to tested whether 14C resutls are repeatable. Davie's multiple-samples-from-a-leaf idea is similar to but not as good as the tests already carried out
What about the completely blind samples these guys tested in the studies?

That's what I want Dave to comment on. And to clearly compare and contrast what the expectations are for this test to the tests that are already published.

ETA: JonF, Put a quote mark ( " ) at the end of the .pdf in the URL link in your message to get it to work. Sorry. I fixed it in this reply.

[JonF]

I STILL want Dave to comment on this study.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI)
and
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI) (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ar izona.edu%2FVolume45%2FNumber2%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v 45_n2_v.pdf)

Actually, anyone comment on what differences the proposed test would accomplish compared to the samples given in these two studies (with the fifth one to be published in the next year).
It would test whether 14C labs "adjust" their results to match expected dates when they do not know they are participating in such a test.

The tests you refer to tested whether 14C results are repeatable. Davie's multiple-samples-from-a-leaf idea is similar to but not as good as the tests already carried out
What about the completely blind samples these guys tested in the studies?

That's what I want Dave to comment on. And to clearly compare and contrast what the expectations are for this test to the tests that are already published.
Yup. His claims that there are problems with 14C dating clearly require his comments on those tests. But they are different tests than we are proposing here; the guys who tested the blind samples knew they were participating in a test of the method. In our experiment they won't.

[Mike PSS]

What about the completely blind samples these guys tested in the studies?

That's what I want Dave to comment on. And to clearly compare and contrast what the expectations are for this test to the tests that are already published.
Yup. His claims that there are problems with 14C dating clearly require his comments on those tests. But they are different tests than we are proposing here; the guys who tested the blind samples knew they were participating in a test of the method. In our experiment they won't.
Hahahahahaha. That's a pretty fine distinction to be made. I really want to hear Dave's take on this.

The sample selection criteria were relatively simple to express, but more difficult to satisfy due to the quantity of material required. The criteria were the following:
i. Homogeneity in 14C activity, either as a natural property or artificially induced;
ii. The samples activities should span the activity range from modern to close to background;
iii. Some duplicates should be incorporated;
iv. Some of the samples should form a link to past exercises;
v. Samples should be available in sufficient quantity to enable excess material to be retained for
archiving as new reference materials;
vi. Most materials should be suitable for measurement by both AMS and radiometric laboratories
vii. All samples should be natural and several should be dendrochronologically-dated wood.
Well, that's a pretty comprehensive sample selection criteria given.

Dave?

[Dave Hawkins]

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?How do I know you won't? It seems the only way to do this is to have YOU GUYS select a sample which YOU think is 15,000 or 20,000 YO or so, then send it to me.

Then I will select which lab to use and have it tested.

[RAFH]

2 - what if the lab, finding the test dates are out of whack with the expected dates, communicates back with the project leader to ask note there is a problem? How does that affect the validity of the test? I can see this being a possible out from the consequences as it could be an opportunity for the client and lab to reach an agreement on the lab date.
The communication person should play dumb.

"I don't know, I''ll ask"

(a day or two later)

"I'm told that you should just report whatever you can measure as best as you can."

Nonetheless, unless davey is present at all communications, I mean personally present, he will pull a davey and suggest it's possible there was some sort of hint given.

[RAFH]

I may have lost track ... where do we stand now?

Me: $500
Dave: "if I could match your $500 and find out something meaningful, I'd be interested."
VoxRat: $200
Constant Mews: $200
damitall: $500
ck1: $200
ericmurphy: $100
Pappy Jack: $50
Black5: $100
Notta Skeptic: $100

Total: $2,450 if Dave signs up; if he doesn't sign up we ain't doing it.



That seems to be getting in the ballpark, if not there already, of what we'd need to do several samples andmaybe do one or more twice at different labs.

Add my $100. That puts us at $2050 without davey. But yeah, davey has to sign on and sign a written, legally enforceable contract.

[RAFH]

I STILL want Dave to comment on this study.

THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI)
and
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI) (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.ar izona.edu%2FVolume45%2FNumber2%2Fazu_radiocarbon_v 45_n2_v.pdf)

Actually, anyone comment on what differences the proposed test would accomplish compared to the samples given in these two studies (with the fifth one to be published in the next year).

ETA: Fixed it for ya PJ. Thanks.

From a scientific point of view, it would accomplish nothing those two don't already show in spades and which is clearly accepted by the scientific community. But it would quiet one particularly noisome critic. And from a purely personal point of view, it would be such a sweet victory to see davey admit, publicly and without any reservation that he is wrong about radiometric testing labs having any bias in their work other than to do the best, most acurate job they can. I suggest the consequences of davey being wrong should include written apologies to Dr. Bertsche, Dr. Leakey and Fitch and Miller, apologies that are open letters that can be published.

[RAFH]

How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?How do I know you won't? It seems the only way to do this is to have YOU GUYS select a sample which YOU think is 15,000 or 20,000 YO or so, then send it to me.

Then I will select which lab to use and have it tested.

Then davey, how we will know you won't bugger up the directions, tip off the lab or submit your own samples instead.

That's why we are discussing protocols. Obviously, there will have to be a meeting between yourself and one of us to sort, label and ship off the samples to a lab we all agree on, not just you. Double blind, remember.

[Febble]

How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?How do I know you won't? It seems the only way to do this is to have YOU GUYS select a sample which YOU think is 15,000 or 20,000 YO or so, then send it to me.

Well, I think we'd have to work out a joint verification procedure. Both "sides" have a vested interest in seeing that the thing is done properly, otherwise the "losing" side can call foul.

Not that I think we need to view it adversarially. But we have two competing hypotheses, which is always nice, so we need to make sure our protocols don't bias in favor of one rather than the other.

Then I will select which lab to use and have it tested.

Well, "I cut, you choose" is quite a good principle. How about one "side" draws up a short list, and the other side picks?

Unless there are huge cost implications, of course.

[JonF]

How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?How do I know you won't? It seems the only way to do this is to have YOU GUYS select a sample which YOU think is 15,000 or 20,000 YO or so, then send it to me.

Then I will select which lab to use and have it tested.
You're not going to handle the sample unsupervised. Nor will anyone but a professional.

Similarly, you will not select the lab(s) alone; the participating group will.

All communication with the lab(s) will be by email, with all parties bcc'ed.

[ericmurphy]

How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?

It doesn't NEED to be a "reliable" date according to your "paradigm", Dave, only according to ours.

If YOU are correct, it won't endorse OUR date unless we tell them what to expect in advance, and we won't.

Right?How do I know you won't? It seems the only way to do this is to have YOU GUYS select a sample which YOU think is 15,000 or 20,000 YO or so, then send it to me.

Then I will select which lab to use and have it tested.

I guess since we are part of the global atheist conspiracy, you can't trust us not to lie, right?

I hope you don't think we're all going to write out our checks to you, Dave.

[ninewands]

How will you know it's over 10k years old? Will it have a label?

:p

Silly billy. That's our end. We decide the expected age for each specimen, you randomise them WRT to sample, and the specimens get sent for testing with the randomised expected ages (well, that would be one way).

Then when we get the results we all check whether they results match our list or yours.

Well, that would be one reasonable methodology.But if it's your 'end' ... how do we begin with that knowledge as JB suggests we do?
Dave, perhaps we could use a sample of something that has already been dated. That way we KNOW what to expect for the age, but we give the lab a completely bogus "expected" age. That way we detect whether or not your "Global Atheist 14C Conspiracy" exists or not AND we get evidence of whether or not 14C dating yields reproducible results.

Use your head for something other than a hatrack for once.

[Barbarian]

1) Acquire a sample with a known age not derived from 14C.How does one do this and be sure it is a reliable date? Or even in the ballpark?It would not matter anyway. Your hypothesis is that the lab will dutifully report whatever hypothetical date you tell them beforehand. The experts here will try to pick a sample they think is older than 6000 years, tell you the age they think is correct, but you tell the lab something different, preferrably younger. See if the lab confirms what the experts told you, or what you told the lab, or something else entirely. It does not matter how the local experts come up with their hypothetical date.

[damitall]

I'm a suspicious bugger, me. I don't want Hawkins to get his mitts on any samples. I would much rather have a mutually acceptable third party do all the actual sample handling, labelling and dispatch, if necessary under close recorded observation by interested parties.

There must be NO opportunity for anyone to claim the possibility of underhandedness at any stage.

Do you think any TV station might be interested in getting involved? I have a tenuous sort of contact at Sky, who do make some vaguely informative pop-sciency programs - I can ask.

[JonF]

I'm a suspicious bugger, me. I don't want Hawkins to get his mitts on any samples. I would much rather have a mutually acceptable third party do all the actual sample handling, labelling and dispatch, if necessary under close recorded observation by interested parties.

There must be NO opportunity for anyone to claim the possibility of underhandedness at any stage.

Do you think any TV station might be interested in getting involved? I have a tenuous sort of contact at Sky, who do make some vaguely informative pop-sciency programs - I can ask.
Gee, that would be great if we could get TV involved.

[Febble]

I'm a suspicious bugger, me. I don't want Hawkins to get his mitts on any samples. I would much rather have a mutually acceptable third party do all the actual sample handling, labelling and dispatch, if necessary under close recorded observation by interested parties.

There must be NO opportunity for anyone to claim the possibility of underhandedness at any stage.

Do you think any TV station might be interested in getting involved? I have a tenuous sort of contact at Sky, who do make some vaguely informative pop-sciency programs - I can ask.
Gee, that would be great if we could get TV involved.

Well, I think that has real potential. Anyone any good at pitching ideas?

[damitall]

I'm a suspicious bugger, me. I don't want Hawkins to get his mitts on any samples. I would much rather have a mutually acceptable third party do all the actual sample handling, labelling and dispatch, if necessary under close recorded observation by interested parties.

There must be NO opportunity for anyone to claim the possibility of underhandedness at any stage.

Do you think any TV station might be interested in getting involved? I have a tenuous sort of contact at Sky, who do make some vaguely informative pop-sciency programs - I can ask.
Gee, that would be great if we could get TV involved.

Well, I think that has real potential. Anyone any good at pitching ideas?

As it happens, I have yet other connections (family) with rather good ideas-pitching experience.

Gimme a few days - the TV connection is rather new to me and will need sensitive treatment

[Black5]

Does anyone have connections with PZ Myers? That would be a good avenue of approach for publicity. Additionally if Dave has contacts with some famous creationists they could be brought into this little experiment for similar publicity.

ETA: TV is an option but I'm more enthused about blogs and other online communication regarding publicity.

[SAWells]

Oh please. Can you imagine Dave trying to have any sort of argument with PZ? He's never dared pop up on Pharyngula. That would be fun to watch.

[Mike PSS]

Oh please. Can you imagine Dave trying to have any sort of argument with PZ? He's never dared pop up on Pharyngula. That would be fun to watch.
Piss, meet vinegar.

[Black5]

I wasn't suggesting Dave and PZ argue. Although that would be fun to watch.

I thought that once the experiment gets going, when the samples are submitted, PZ Myers and anyone on either side of the evo/creo debate could be informed and be part of revealing the results. I'm interested in spreading the word of of the experiment because of its evo/creo participation (assuming Dave grows some balls). I'm also interested in seeing who wouldn't want to participate in publicizing it. Seekers of truth and all that.

[RAFH]

One caution, it is necessary to refrain from much if any publicity prior to the announcement of the results or that will be used to claim the laboratory was pre-informed of the experiment and so refrained from 'fixing' the dates.

[Jet Black]

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.


where would it say in the bible that something is over 10kya? that's the only alternate line of evidence that I will accept.

[Elka]

Davey, it's time to put up or shut up.

Surely you, with your deep pockets and connections to AiG's money man, Ken Ham, can make arrangements for us to mount an "expedition" to Suigetsu Ko and lay this "controversy about carbon dating" to rest!

You keep saying "we" need to cooperate to find "the truth" but you keep running away from experiments that wil answer your spurious objections.

Elká

[Pappy Jack]

72 hours since Dave contributed anything to this thread. Hmmm...... Does anyone suspect he may not really be interested?

[Jet Black]

72 hours since Dave contributed anything to this thread. Hmmm...... Does anyone suspect he may not really be interested?

get in line, I've been waiting a week and two days for him to get back to me.

[Obd]

Have you ever heard of multiple lines of evidence? Radiometric dating might provide the most detailed absolute age estimate, but there are many other factors that allow for a rough estimate.


where would it say in the bible that something is over 10kya? that's the only alternate line of evidence that I will accept.

Well Dave wants to find out if radiometric dating is just used to "confirm old earth assumptions". Where the hell does he think those "Old earth assumptions" come from?

[Pappy Jack]

Is this going anywhere or are we waiting for some sort of response from Dave? As it's over a week since he poked his snout in here, it strikes me that Dave will be more than happy to see this proposal whither and die on the vine, never to be referred to again except as a failure by the EAC to step up to the plate and meet yet another of his fearless challenges. The last thing he wants to see is any test that he fears may result in his YEC worldview being threatened.

Hello, Dave? Anyone?

[JonF]

Is this going anywhere or are we waiting for some sort of response from Dave? As it's over a week since he poked his snout in here, it strikes me that Dave will be more than happy to see this proposal whither and die on the vine, never to be referred to again except as a failure by the EAC to step up to the plate and meet yet another of his fearless challenges. The last thing he wants to see is any test that he fears may result in his YEC worldview being threatened.

Hello, Dave? Anyone?
I been busy, but it's still on my mind.

And it's not one of Dave's challenges, it's one of mine.

I'm sure he'd rather everyone just forget about it. He certainly isn't leaping at the opportunuty to perform a scientific test of his claims.

[Pappy Jack]

Is this going anywhere or are we waiting for some sort of response from Dave? As it's over a week since he poked his snout in here, it strikes me that Dave will be more than happy to see this proposal whither and die on the vine, never to be referred to again except as a failure by the EAC to step up to the plate and meet yet another of his fearless challenges. The last thing he wants to see is any test that he fears may result in his YEC worldview being threatened.

Hello, Dave? Anyone?
I been busy, but it's still on my mind.

And it's not one of Dave's challenges, it's one of mine.

I'm sure he'd rather everyone just forget about it. He certainly isn't leaping at the opportunuty to perform a scientific test of his claims.
Sorry, my bad wording. I know Dave would never contemplate proposing any challenge that he thought might result in a proper test of his claims. I was forecasting the spin Dave might put on the whole thing subsequently.

[damitall]

Unfortunately, my TV contact wasn't much enthused about the proposed experiment, although he did say he might discuss it with another journalist to see if it could be included in a wider project. He did say that he felt that the underlying issue was not particularly high-profile as far as his area of operations was concerned.

He didn't seem really engaged though - I tend to forget that not everybody is as hot on these issues as are posters here.

[Dave Hawkins]

If it makes all of you feel any better, I think my suspicion that the carbon 14 date of a single leaf could vary widely depending on which small portion of the leaf you sample could well be unfounded. I think it is more likely that the pMC values obtained by the Groningen lab for the Suigetsu leaf samples are probably fairly accurate. If this is the case, the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.

[Jet Black]

thanks dave.

[Febble]

Yeah, thanks, Dave. I'm impressed.

[damitall]

f it makes all of you feel any better, I think my suspicion that the carbon 14 date of a single leaf could vary widely depending on which small portion of the leaf you sample could well be unfounded. I think it is more likely that the pMC values obtained by the Groningen lab for the Suigetsu leaf samples are probably fairly accurate. If this is the case, the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.

Why the change of heart, please?

[VoxRat]

If it makes all of you feel any better, ....What's up with this?

You can't just admit that you were wrong, or that others' evidence and logic were compelling?

It has to be "If it makes all of you feel any better"... as in "let the baby have its way"?
As if this isn't simply a matter of accuracy in describing a scientific procedure, it's about "feelings"?

:rolleyes:

[deadman_932]

the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.Except that Mike PSS pretty much killed that notion.

[Mike PSS]

If it makes all of you feel any better, I think my suspicion that the carbon 14 date of a single leaf could vary widely depending on which small portion of the leaf you sample could well be unfounded. I think it is more likely that the pMC values obtained by the Groningen lab for the Suigetsu leaf samples are probably fairly accurate. If this is the case, the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.
Dave,
The fact that you came to this conclusion on your own without pages of banter telling you your "cracked in the head" is encouraging.

I think there are some threads where we discussed this specific 14C topic.

Care to start this discussion again?

[Jet Black]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.

[Occam's Aftershave]

If it makes all of you feel any better, I think my suspicion that the carbon 14 date of a single leaf could vary widely depending on which small portion of the leaf you sample could well be unfounded. I think it is more likely that the pMC values obtained by the Groningen lab for the Suigetsu leaf samples are probably fairly accurate. If this is the case, the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.
Does this mean you're finally ready to explain why the measured pMC values of the Suigetsu layers decrease exponentially with depth?

Since you say all the layers were made in the same year from the same churned up Flood soil, why do they have hugely varying pMC values at all?

[Occam's Aftershave]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.

I'm interested to see if Dave is finally going to apologize to Dr. Bertsche for Dave's gross misrepresentation of the good doctor's C14 explanations.

[SAWells]

Possibly the arrival of a restraining order from Dr. Bertsche might have something to do with it? :)

[Febble]

Possibly the arrival of a restraining order from Dr. Bertsche might have something to do with it? :)

http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/albums/37656/srsly001.jpg

[Jet Black]

http://lolbots.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/yarly.jpg

[Febble]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/omg.jpg

[VoxRat]

Hey! come on...
out with it!
Is there really something to know here?

[Faid]

If it makes all of you feel any better, I think my suspicion that the carbon 14 date of a single leaf could vary widely depending on which small portion of the leaf you sample could well be unfounded. I think it is more likely that the pMC values obtained by the Groningen lab for the Suigetsu leaf samples are probably fairly accurate. If this is the case, the YEC model of C14 concentration changes in the biosphere during the transition from pre-Flood to post-Flood would become important.Whoa.

Dave spent months quotemining Bertsche and others, arguing strongly and persistently about how radiocarbon dating labs supposedly discard discordant dates, and produce the "expected age".... Saying things like "It's pretty obvious what's happening here, although I can't prove it"...

And now, all of a sudden, this? The results are "fairly accurate"? It's back to the old Brown model, the one dave had dropped for his Conspiracy claims, when he had realized he could not make it stand? Just like that?



But wait- in his post, I notice that dave refers to the Groningen lab alone...

Hmm...

...Did you perhaps receive a rather alarming letter in the mail recently, dave? Or was it a phone call? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Becuase if that's the case, then yes, it does "make us feel better"- in fact, it makes us fall off our chair laughing, as you would say. ;)

[SAWells]

Be calm, people, I was joking.

[Febble]

Nuts.

[damitall]

"Likely....probably....fairly accurate"?

Is this a notretraction?

Slight air of teeth being drawn here - a general feeling of reluctance to say outright that which it would be honest to say

[Jet Black]

Be calm, people, I was joking.

http://www.o--rly.com/owl_orly.png

[Faid]

Be calm, people, I was joking.I know, SA, but I still think dave's sudden change is somewhat suspicious. It is a radical shift in his line of arguments, going entirely the other way, without any warning. His last claims on this issue had been as firm (and arrogant) as usual, defending his "multiple date- discarding" theory like always... And now, out of the blue, he claims the results are accurate after all! And he is not stupid, so he KNOWS how devastating that is for his claims about Suigetsu (C14 correlation with depth, dave?).

SO, there's a good chance that someone finally put him in his place with a fair warning. I don't think that would be Bertsche, however; From reading his comments at TWeb, I believe he's a calm and polite person, a scientist and a Christian, who's not going to waste his time dealing with dave's tricks.

But those technicians from the Groningen lab, that dave was trying to contact? Perhaps they're not as keen to have someone claiming online that their lab produces all kinds of erroneous dates, only to hide them and present the "expected" ones...

But of course, all this is speculation. Only one person can give us the facts.

Dave???????????????

[ericmurphy]

I think we can rest assured that if Dave was actually served with a cease and desist order, the last person who would confirm that would be Dave himself.

[Jet Black]

or maybe someone contacted one of the labs and told them that dave is publically accusing them of faking results and they got a bit, you know, annoyed. Like I would if I got told that someone was accusing me of faking my results.

[Pappy Jack]

or maybe someone contacted one of the labs and told them that dave is publically accusing them of faking results and they got a bit, you know, annoyed. Like I would if I got told that someone was accusing me of faking my results.
Interesting thought. Will Dave tell us what led to his grudging change of heart on this matter? What piece of evidence or argument persuaded him so to post? Is Faid correct in the inference he draws from the fact that Dave mentions only the Groningen lab?

[JCL]

I would guess this is a new diversionary tactic with the purpose of getting the great dave more attention.

It seems to be working.

[Faid]

I think we can rest assured that if Dave was actually served with a cease and desist order, the last person who would confirm that would be Dave himself.
Well, what I have to grant dave is that he wouldn't try to flat-out lie to our face (at least, not before half-convincing himself that he's not actually lying- but that's another story ;)). So, if we are in fact correct in our suspicions, what we must expect from dave is deafening silence on this issue, coupled with attempts to change the subject.

But I must say that, IF dave, clearly and unambiguously, denied that his sudden change of mind is because of anything like what we suspect, I would believe him.

Then, of course, he would have to explain the reasons that made him change is mind alluva sudden...

So... Dave?????????

[Dave Hawkins]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, and I would sure love to see the results of maybe 10 small subsamples from the Suigetsu column. I wonder if some samples from the Kitagawa cores are still available for testing.

[Jet Black]

so then you're back to thinking that the variation in the suigetsu cores is because of the rapidly changing post-flood C14 levels?

what do you think the production rate of C14 is?

[Febble]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, and I would sure love to see the results of maybe 10 small subsamples from the Suigetsu column. I wonder if some samples from the Kitagawa cores are still available for testing.

So let me get this absolutely straight: am I right in thinking that you no longer think it likely that labs return dates based on the "expected dates" provided, but simply return the date that their equipment produces?

Because if not, then the experiment is still on.

[Faid]

1. Forget "threatening letters"... Did you receive ANY form of warning, if ever so polite? Yes or No?
Like I said: If you respond "No" to this question, as I phrased it, I will believe you.

2. As for "never saying it was very likely", did you or did you not say "I think it's obvious what's happening here, although I can't prove it" (exact words may vary, but not substantially)?

3. Either way, And since you now finally understand what we've been telling you all this time, from way back at Theology Web (about the impossibility of wide variation in a single contamination-free sample, even according to Brown's model),

Do you admit that the results from the labs are accurate, and produce the actual C14 content of the samples, without "discarding erroneous dates" and "not publishing data" and all your other previous assertions?

Your admission that The results from the Groningen lab are "fairly accurate" should be enough, but I want to have this cleared out beyond reasonable doubt.



PLEASE respond to the 3 points above, dave. It would help immensely in your future conversations with us. And it would help you score some honesty points, which can never be a bad thing for anyone, in any debate.

[JonF]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, ...
Indeed? What convinced you that it is possible? Do you have any evidence or reason to believe that it is possible?

[Notta_skeptic]

or maybe someone contacted one of the labs and told them that dave is publically accusing them of faking results and they got a bit, you know, annoyed. Like I would if I got told that someone was accusing me of faking my results.
I rather doubt that any respectable lab would give a rat's a$$ about whether some YEC on some on-line forum was accusing them of dishonesty.

Did anyone see the YouTube video of Obama brushing the lint off his shoulder when asked about the claims of his detractors?

That's what the labs would do.

In the world of science, Dave's claims have the weight and authenticity of a piece of lint. (Or pet hair.)

[Dave Hawkins]

so then you're back to thinking that the variation in the suigetsu cores is because of the rapidly changing post-flood C14 levels?

what do you think the production rate of C14 is?Back to? Both possibilities have always been on the table.

[Dave Hawkins]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, and I would sure love to see the results of maybe 10 small subsamples from the Suigetsu column. I wonder if some samples from the Kitagawa cores are still available for testing.

So let me get this absolutely straight: am I right in thinking that you no longer think it likely that labs return dates based on the "expected dates" provided, but simply return the date that their equipment produces?

Because if not, then the experiment is still on.Febble ... read exactly what I have written please. I still think labs reject dates that aren't within expectations ... nothing's changed there. However, I'm not sure that they get radically different results from multiple subsamples of a single leaf.

[Dave Hawkins]

as with others, I would be interested to know why dave has changed his angle so suddenly and without explanation.No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, ...
Indeed? What convinced you that it is possible?Bertsche and his Jericho wood discussion.

[Febble]

No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, and I would sure love to see the results of maybe 10 small subsamples from the Suigetsu column. I wonder if some samples from the Kitagawa cores are still available for testing.

So let me get this absolutely straight: am I right in thinking that you no longer think it likely that labs return dates based on the "expected dates" provided, but simply return the date that their equipment produces?

Because if not, then the experiment is still on.Febble ... read exactly what I have written please. I still think labs reject dates that aren't within expectations ... nothing's changed there. However, I'm not sure that they get radically different results from multiple subsamples of a single leaf.

Thanks for making that clear, Dave. In that case, the experiment is still worth doing.

We give a lab samples with shuffled "expected dates" and we see whether what comes back is dates nearer to the shuffled dates, or nearer to the true dates.

If the first - your hypothesis is supported.
If the second - ours is.

Sound fair?

[Mike PSS]

so then you're back to thinking that the variation in the suigetsu cores is because of the rapidly changing post-flood C14 levels?

what do you think the production rate of C14 is?Back to? Both possibilities have always been on the table.
Post-flood 14C model.

Still waiting.

Anytime your ready Dave.

Ressurect it from the RD.net threads since your last attempt at RnR didn't move one iota beyond what was done at RD.net.

Say the word Dave. 14C models, ready and waiting for examination and validation. :wave:

[Dave Hawkins]

...
PLEASE respond to the 3 points above, dave. It would help immensely in your future conversations with us. And it would help you score some honesty points, which can never be a bad thing for anyone, in any debate.LOL. Someone please send this guy off to join Constant Mews in La La Land.

[deadman_932]

LOL. Someone please send this guy off to join Constant Mews in La La Land. Yeah, imagine thinking that you might act honestly. The idea!

[NinJay]

Dave -

You're being paged over at another site. Something about clouds...

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave -

You're being paged over at another site. Something about clouds...Hi Ninjay ... I'll be over ... I didn't think there was further interest.

[deadman_932]

Hah.

[JonF]

No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, ...
Indeed? What convinced you that it is possible?Bertsche and his Jericho wood discussion.
It is possible, in the absence of other information, for a contaminated sample to give wildly different results depending on which part is tested, especially a sample that has much more "third-dimension" than a leaf. Contamination usually results in a 14C age that is younger than the sample's true age.

But we have moreinformation. he Suigetsu results are so consilient (that word that scares you so much) with the varve counting and other results such as the Cariaco basin varves and the Bahamian stalagmites .. any viable explanation of the results must also explain that consilience. Contamination doesn't explain the consilience. Liars in the labs doesn't explain the consilience.

Try again.

[JonF]

No threatening letters from anyone. I just got to thinking that it's probably an unlikely scenario for pMC values to vary widely over one leaf. I never said that I thought this was very likely, just a possibility. And it is possible, and I would sure love to see the results of maybe 10 small subsamples from the Suigetsu column. I wonder if some samples from the Kitagawa cores are still available for testing.

So let me get this absolutely straight: am I right in thinking that you no longer think it likely that labs return dates based on the "expected dates" provided, but simply return the date that their equipment produces?

Because if not, then the experiment is still on.Febble ... read exactly what I have written please. I still think labs reject dates that aren't within expectations ... nothing's changed there. However, I'm not sure that they get radically different results from multiple subsamples of a single leaf.
So you figure they just lie?

[JonF]

so polite? Yes or No?
Like I said: If you respond "No" to this question, as I phrased it, I will believe you.

2. As for "never saying it was very likely", did you or did you not say "I think it's obvious what's happening here, although I can't prove it" (exact words may vary, but not substantially)?

3. Either way, And since you now finally understand what we've been telling you all this time, from way back at Theology Web (about the impossibility of wide variation in a single contamination-free sample, even a