[Creationist alleges that] Carbon 14 AMS Physicist Confirms Creationist Assertions

[Dave Hawkins]

Dr. Kirk Bertsche worked as an accelerator physicist at a leading AMS lab according to his post HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916).

Later, when I asked him this question ... A question for Kirk ...

Is AMS testing such as this normally done "blind"? That is does the lab know the approximate age that the sample is expected to be? He answered thusly ...

The folks preparing the samples normally want to know as much as possible about the samples, so they can use the appropriate pretreatments. This often includes knowing the approximate date.

The samples are then assigned numbers and are measured. Sometimes the measurement is by the same folks and sometimes by different people, so in some cases they know the approximate ages and in other cases they don't. But generally someone in the lab knows the approximate age.

Notable exceptions are the measurements of the Shroud of Turin and the subsequent international intercomparisons every few years. These intercomparisons are all done blind.

Kirk

This seems to support creationist John Woodmorappe's discussion of this topic referenced HERE (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779). Yes, we're talking about long age isotopes vs. short, but it seems that non-blind testing is the norm with both.

And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp), where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

[Occam's Aftershave]

WTF Dave? You've only had this explained to you fifty times on at least four different boards. Do you think the fifty-first time is going to be any different?

You just got done getting reamed over your blatant lying about Dr. Bertsche's statements. What in the hell do you think you can possibly accomplish by starting yet another thread on the same topic??

[Lucretius III]

Dave you are being particularly stupid and annoying over this .
Far from descending into a mess the other thread has in fact answered your "problem" which you would know if you actually bothered to think about what has been said to you.
That you do not like the answer is YOUR problem.
Your continued veiled assertions of widespread fraud in C14 dating and outright refusal to apologize for this is depressing in the extreme .
Dave have a sit down with a cup of tea read what you have been told and think about it
For God's sake (intentional this ) take off your Creationist glasses and behave like a rational human being for once

[Rant over for now at least )

[Ray Moscow]

Dave, it seems to me that you are expected a controversy where none exists.

Of course lab techs like to know the approximate value or quantity of the key components for a sample -- so that they can calibrate the equipment, prepare reagents in the right concentrations, etc. It's 10 times more work if you have no idea where to start with any particular analysis -- sometimes you don't even know which method to use till you have some idea of the concentration to be measured.

Remember chemistry lab?

[Mike PSS]

Here you go Dave.
C'mon Dave. Let's go back to square one on this discussion.

Here's Kitagawa's paper outlining ALL the core data from 1993 and 1998. (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/index.php/objectviewer?o=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume42/Number3/azu_radiocarbon_v42_n3_369_380_v.pdf)

CYTOPLASMIC MASSES PRESERVED IN EARLY HOLOCENE DIATOMS: A POSSIBLE TAPHONOMIC PROCESS AND ITS PALEO-ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2006.00192.x)
Why, that's a new one. What do we find in this link? Why, evidence of annual varves that's what.
In Lake Suigetsu, central Japan, greenish/light-brown granules identified as cytoplasmic masses had been preserved in siliceous cell walls of freshwater diatoms in annual layers of lacustrine muds since the early Holocene. The lacustrine muds consisted of alternating dark-colored (rich in diatom valves, clay, and organic matter) and light-colored (mainly diatom valves) laminae. The greenish/light-brown granules were predominately preserved in frustules of the genus Aulacoseira preserved in the dark-colored laminae. The dark-colored laminae were inferred to have formed annually under stratified water caused by surface water warming in summer that caused the formation of an organic-rich anoxic layer on the lake bottom that favored granule preservation. The good preservation of cytoplasmic masses in dark-colored laminae suggested a cause for diatom assemblage periodicity, a phenomenon that was commonly noted in temperate lakes: the cells containing these masses could be potential seed stocks for subsequent spring blooms. Frustules of the most abundant granule-containing species, Aulacoseira nipponica (Skvortzow) Tuji, in the dark-colored laminae of the Early Holocene muds were abundant in the overlying light-colored laminae, suggesting that these species reproduced abundantly in springtime yielding a massive diatom bloom.
There you go Dave. MORE evidence of the annual nature of the varves, independently arrived at without using 14C or anything else.


Oh, here's some more....
Advanced Micro-XRF Method to Separate Sedimentary Rhythms and Event Layers in Sediments: Its Application to Lacustrine Sediment from Lake Suigetsu, Japan (http://www.springerlink.com/content/e414h78j44445v7u/)
Event-related sedimentary layers, which are deposited occasionally due to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes or heavy rains, are often contained in the rhythmical sequences of lacustrine and marine sediments. We have developed an analytical method for separating the sedimentary rhythms and the event layers identified using the scanning X-ray analytical microscope (SXAM) and obtained sequential profiles of seven elements Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, and Fe in the lacustrine sediment from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. Two types of event layers could be detected from the elemental composition of 33 layers of sediment: three known volcanic ash layers and 30 clay layers containing 12 turbidites. The recurrence interval of the latter, which may potentially be initiated and archived by locally important earthquakes, is estimated to be an average of 640 ± 160 years by using Sompi event analysis (SEA) based on an autoregressive (AR) model. After removing those portions that represented event layers from the elemental profiles, we obtained event-removed (ER) temporal profiles based on the tephrochronology of the three volcanic ash layers. The ER temporal profiles of manganese and iron, probably representing the siderite content, showed a millennial-scale variation in the Holocene that corresponded well with ice-rafting events in the North Atlantic.
Read that Dave? These guys have enough data from the Lake Suigetsu cores to derive millennial-scale variations.
Do you know what that means? Why, that means that the Lake Suigetsu varves go back tens of thousands of years for these researchers to detect AND derive a millennial-scale variation.

And let's not forget this....
The Emperor Seamounts: Southward
Motion of the Hawaiian Hotspot Plume in Earth’s Mantle (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://tor9.big.ous.ac.jp/People/torii/papers.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKitagawa%2BH,%2BHayashida%2BA,%26star t%3D70%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

Wait a minute? How did that get in here. This thread is only to show you Lake Suigetsu evidence for an old earth. We'll have to wait to get to the Emperor Seamount : Hawaiin Chain evidence.

Moving on...
The Groningen AMS tandetron
S. Wijma, J. van der Plicht * (http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1997/NucInsMPhRBWijma/1997NuclInstrMethPhysResBWijma.pdf)
Here's the write-up for the Groningen AMS facility that did all the 14C testing.

Episodic Holocene loess deposition in central Nebraska (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGS-40HV004-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f136ef5ae699dea6ea1efccb8247ea40)
Oooopss again Dave. Here's some loess deposits near your house that date back over 9000 years. I don't know what this has to do with Lake Suigetsu? Do you?

Lake Suigetsu Pollen Data and Climate Reconstructions (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pollen/asia/japan/suigetsu2006.txt)
Here's tables and tables of data from Lake Suigetsu pollen. Bunches of Data Dave. Any ideas?

And finally, here's a paper that answers your "recent history" questions about the Lake.
Changes of eco-systems in the last 500 years caused by human impacts in Lake Suigetsu, central Japan. (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200219/000020021902A0469702.php)
Annually laminated (varved) lacustrine sediments have been found in many Japanese lakes including Lake Suigetsu. Several studies for the reconstruction of past environmental and climatic changes have been carried out with varved sediments. However we have not yet clarified the relationships among abrupt changes of environment, biologic changes in lake eco-systems, and organic and inorganic changes in bottom sediments. Two problems can be summarized as follows; 1) on authigenesis of minerals as main components of sediments and 2) on ecological response of living microplanktons to changes of lake water condition. By reason of confirming how the chemical composition of authigenic minerals and the species composition of diatom assemblages in varved sediments are linked with chemical composition of lake water, we carried out new coring and took 8 cores of well-preserved varved sediments by Meckereth piston sampler at Lake Suigetsu in 2000. Based on varve chronological, sedimentologic and micropaleontologic investigations, we clarified the following facts; 1) most of authigenic mineral particles have precipitated directly from bottom water mass through sulfate reduction, but not from interstitial water in sediments; 2) abrupt environmental changes in water eco-system were caused by human impacts in and around Lake Suigetsu during the last 500 years; 3) after the lake eco-system gradationally evolved by low rate external impacts, it never returned to the initial condition without other impacts; 4) short term changes of lake eco-system and phytoplankton communities have been caused by external human impacts with high rate. (author abst.)
Care to comment on this Dave?

Let's drop the nonsense discussions and look at the facts Dave. Just the facts.

[Mike PSS]

Here's a neat table.

Look at the tables in the back of this paper from Radiocarbon....
Here's Kitagawa's paper outlining ALL the core data from 1993 and 1998. (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/index.php/objectviewer?o=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume42/Number3/azu_radiocarbon_v42_n3_369_380_v.pdf)

Then look at the attached image table from the Groningen Lab.
The Groningen AMS tandetron
S. Wijma, J. van der Plicht * (http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1997/NucInsMPhRBWijma/1997NuclInstrMethPhysResBWijma.pdf)

21

NOTE: They do question ONE of the data points as possible contamination. But, as can be seen, this is only a small variance in an otherwise consistent line.

More data for you.:yikes:

[Occam's Aftershave]

I'd be tempted to think this is just an April Fool's joke by Dave, except for the fact that he posts repetitive stupidity like this 365 days a year. :rolleyes:

[Lucretius III]

I'd be tempted to think this is just an April Fool's joke by Dave, except for the fact that he posts repetitive stupidity like this 365 days a year. :rolleyes:

366 this year :D

[VoxRat]

...


And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp), where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

.. Ah, a new board.
A perfect opportunity for a reboot.

Let's pretend that this dead horse hasn't been beaten to a fine pink mist.

Let me introduce you to a very important concept in science, Dave. It's called consilience. It works like this: any deduction, if it's true, can generally be arrived at and/or confirmed in several different ways. That's because physics and nature are consistent.


So when someone finds some data that indicates, for instance, that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1957, we can pretty safely say there's something wrong with the chain of data leading to that conclusion. That's because there is tons of independent evidence that shows that can't possibly be true. So we reject it. Same with 230 million year old humans. There's tons of independent evidence that that's wrong. You may not know immediately what's wrong, though contamination is an obvious suspect.

It's this concept of consilience that allows us to use technology judiciously. We don't instantly decide that all of radiodating is invalid because of one anomalous result. We look at each result in the context of everything else we've learned, and ask ourselves: "does this fit? If not, is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? Or does it call for rejecting everything else we've learned?"

Of course, in order to exercise this new concept, we have to do a bit of reading up on what has been learned, and how it has been learned. Fortunately, there are whole libraries full of these "book" things. (This being a reboot, fresh start, back to square one and all, it seems appropriate that I should "introduce" the concept of actually reading at least one of those "book" things on a subject before you declare yourself more knowledgeable in it than the people who have studied, done research, and taught that subject.)

[Febble]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.

[Lucretius III]

...


And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp), where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

.. Ah, a new board.
A perfect opportunity for a reboot.

Let's pretend that this dead horse hasn't been beaten to a fine pink mist.

Let me introduce you to a very important concept in science, Dave. It's called consilience. It works like this: any deduction, if it's true, can generally be arrived at and/or confirmed in several different ways. That's because physics and nature are consistent.


So when someone finds some data that indicates, for instance, that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1957, we can pretty safely say there's something wrong with the chain of data leading to that conclusion. That's because there is tons of independent evidence that shows that can't possibly be true. So we reject it. Same with 230 million year old humans. There's tons of independent evidence that that's wrong. You may not know immediately what's wrong though contamination is an obvious suspect.

It's this concept of consilience that allows us to use technology judiciously. We don't instantly decide that all of radiodating is invalid because of one anomalous result. We look at each result in the context of everything else we've learned, and ask ourselves: "does this fit? If not, is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? Or does it call for rejecting everything else we've learned?"

Of course, in order to exercise this new concept, we have to do a bit of reading up on what has been learned, and how it has been learned. Fortunately, there are whole libraries full of these "book" things. (This being a reboot, fresh start, back to square one and all, it seems appropriate that I should "introduce" the concept of actually reading at least one of those "book" things a subject before you declare yourself more knowledgeable in it than the people who have studied, done research, and taught that subject.)


Surely the problem is that for Dave and other Creationists is that they think they have THE book and all others are just pale imitiations regarding THE truth .

[Febble]

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

Mod note: The only sense in which I can see that it is a mess is that you made allegations that a large number of posters were quick to refute.

If you have problems with any specific post or posts that you think are off-topic, please alert on them and I will split them out.

I know it's difficult when there is a pile-on, but I'm afraid that's the way it is when you make a controversial post. You need to deal with the objections on that thread - or at least some of them - not just repeat the allegations in a new thread, which will simply attract the same kind of pile-on unless you can deal with the hailstorm of rebuttals.

Alternatively we possibly can set up a thread where you engage with one other poster only, and we confine comment to a peanut gallery.


ETA: Dave was right about the last ream of posts. They are now split out.

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

[Febble]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

Yes, you are right about the off-topic stuff. I've already split them out.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Ray Moscow]

Alternately, Dave can deal with objections to his statements instead of setting conditions before doing so.

[VoxRat]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.This post is off-topic.

[Febble]

Mod note: Thread retitled by me (addition in square brackets)

[Ian Nerr]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

We could have been rid of him so easily.

[Febble]

Alternately, Dave can deal with objections to his statements instead of setting conditions before doing so.

Well, the record should show that the derail posts were split out before he delivered his conditions. He was right. There was a derail I had failed to register.

[Occam's Aftershave]

OK dave, the derails are gone, this thread is just about radiocarbon dating.

So now will you explain why the empirically measured pMC values for the suigetsu layers decrease exponentially with depth?

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=18419&postcount=228).

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

Well, the condition has been met -- was in fact met before the condition was asserted.

What do we suppose the odds are that dave will fulfill on his promise?
Based on past behavior we might be forgiven entertaining a few doubts...

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[Faid]

I decided that the best way to respond to this person that goes by the name of dave Hawkins, of kids4truth and truthmatters.info, and claims to be a honest and sincere Christian, is to repeat my unanswered comments on his behavior at TW. Sorry if I am merely repeating myself from another forum, but I don't think dave deserves further attention on this- and, frankly, I take some pride in predicting his future behavior exactly back then (not that it was that hard.)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2214577&postcount=264

Dave, why did you run off from this thread, as soon as Kirk said that? Why didn't you stay here and discuss this with him, to clarify the situation?

If you recall, Kirk also explained that double blind tests are, in fact, made on a regular basis, precicely for the reason you wanted them to take place.

Kirk also said many more interesting things. He confirmed that discordant dates are NOT hidden, but examined and the samples evaluated- and, if the discordance persists, the dates are published, along with the complete history of their measurement.

Kirk also told you that a sample is only dated once or twice, not hundreds of times, as you postulated.

All these were in direct contradiction with your assertions so far. Dave, you keep saying that you are interested in an honest discussion, and only wish to find out the truth.

So, why didn't you stay here and discuss all this with Kirk? Why is it that, the minute he posted this, you lost all interest in further discussion, bailed out and ran off to another forum to quote him?

Why do you now return here, only to ask which way to use that quote in the future? Is that all you are interested in?


Dave, that is NOT the behavior of someone interested in a honest discussion. It is the behavior of someone who is just looking for a quotemine. Someone waiting for his opponent to use just the right phrase, so that he can take it out of context and use it to mislead people.

Is that what you are doing, dave?


...


Dave, this is extermely interesting. In this forum, you have made the worst start ever- and you have also displayed the worst behavior, and you have also left it the sooner.

And this is a forum full of Christians, dave. [Well TW was- ;) ]

Why do you suppose this is? Why do you suppose that an ever-increasing number of Christian posters here criticizes you for your actions?

Is this why you are leaving? Is this why you prefer 'sceptic' forums, where you can blame the bad opinion people have for you on the Evil Darwinist Atheist Conspiracy, and not your own shortcomings against your very beliefs? [Think of how dave now starts another thread, when cornered on his false claims about Kirk, claiming that we turned the first one into "a mess"]

Think about it, next time you try to pull another dishonest quotemining attempt, like this last one against KBertsche. We know you, and we don't expect anything better. But the Christian that sees you behave this way- do you think you bring them closer to the YEC worldview, with such actions?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2215092&postcount=274

Ages are NOT [quote]KNOWN beforehand, dave. [U]Kirk has thoroughly explained the process. He made prfectly clear to you that the data is examined and evaluated in an unbiased way, EVEN WHEN an APPROXIMATE age is expected- NO, ESPECIALLY when an approximate age is expected. And if discordant dates are found, they are evaluated and PUBLISHED- along with their measurement history.

You KNOW all that. Kirk TOLD you. You KNOW that the actual "hogwash" is your previous slander against scientists: That they supposedly conduct hundreds of measurements for each sample, and that the supposedly hide or discard the ones they don't like, and publish only the ones that fit their preconceived notions.
And furthermore, you now KNOW that measurements that are used for calibrating and consiling data ARE double-blind. Like in SUIGETSU. Kirk told you that as well.

You KNOW all that. You KNOW that your slander was baseless.

But you choose to ignore it, and isolate a single phrase from Kirk's post, to distort and mangle ("know" in QUOTES? Pleeease, dave).

And, from now on, you will only refer to this distorted phrase, and you will conveniently ignore the essence of Kirk's post. And of course, your supposed "quest for the truth" will end right here: No further discussion, no more arguing. You got the quotemine you aimed for.


Compare what I had said back then, with what dave has been doing since, up to now, in this thread.

Spare us your tricks, dave. You're not fooling the lurkers. You're not fooling anyone.
Now apologize to Kirk Bertsche, and retract your false statement that he "admitted" scientists supposedly "typically reject" the dates that don't agree with the "expected age". He specifically DENIED that, and yet you keep asserting he didn't.
There's no way around it: Retract NOW, and stop avoiding your responsibility by bailing out from one thread to start another. :mad:

[Dave Hawkins]

Again, this thread is about blind testing in the field of radiometric dating. It appears that no off topic posts from this thread have been split off.

[Ian Nerr]

Yeah, now go find something productive to do.

[Dave Hawkins]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, deny the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.

[Febble]

Again, this thread is about blind testing in the field of radiometric dating. It appears that no off topic posts from this thread have been split off.

Mod note: Dave, I split out off-topic posts from the thread you said you wouldn't post in because it was a mess. You were right - it had had a derail. I've split out the derail, so now you can go back to it.

The only derails in this thread I can see are the derails about off-topic posts, and they should probably stand for now.

The topic of this thread is your allegation that Dr Bertsche has confirmed creationist assertions.

The only gardening job I can see that might be worth doing is to merge this thread with the posts on your Dr Bertsche allegations in the other thread. Alternatively, I can lock this one. But we only need one thread on this topic

[Ian Nerr]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, denies the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.

"I denies"?

It's "I deny".

[Gojira]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, denies the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.

No, when you claim that someone says one thing, and you quote them, and then someone else posts the original unaltered quote that says something very different to what you claim - then you get booed and hissed at.

Oh, and the only source I could google for the quote in your post above (as opposed to the one you edited) is on AIG. I wonder why that might be?

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... The other thread was about "varve" terminology. This thread is about blind testing. Your question pertains to THIS thread, not the other. But if you want me to answer your question (which I will only do on THIS thread since this thread is what it pertains to) then please delete all the off topic posts from THIS thread. If you start locking and merging, I may not be interested in posting on this forum much. You and I have both known for a long time that my posts tend to attract both irresponsible posters as well as competent ones. The problem has always been that many responsible posters would like to converse with me, but they often give up when they see a dogpile. There is a very simple way to fix the dogpiles. Ban those creating the dogpiles. Or at least control them. Then you will have a nice forum. I've given this advice at several forums. Maybe you'll be the first to take my advice.

[Faid]

I believe you missed dave's point, Febble. He considers the subject of this thread to be Kirk's "admission" that the approximate age of the sample is known before testing, NOT his false claim that Kirk supposedly "admitted" samples are discarded if they do not agree to the "Expected Age".

And, of course, he wants you to delete all posts that tell him to retract that claim, as "off-topic".

And no, he has no intention of ever visiting that other, accursed thread again. That IS why he made this one.

Sneaky, huh?

[Ian Nerr]

What can you provide us that we can't provide ourselves by reposting your threads ourselves and ignoring the responses?

This place would be better without you if you're not going to contribute honestly to discussions.

Tell you what guys. If Dave leaves, I'll take over for him.

[Occam's Aftershave]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, denies the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.
Oh boy Dave! A 40+ year old out of context quote you got from a Creationist journal! You've sure convinced me! :p

Are you just pulling our leg today, pretending to be this big of a dork? With you it's hard to tell...

[Occam's Aftershave]

Febble ... The other thread was about "varve" terminology. This thread is about blind testing. Your question pertains to THIS thread, not the other. But if you want me to answer your question (which I will only do on THIS thread since this thread is what it pertains to) then please delete all the off topic posts from THIS thread. If you start locking and merging, I may not be interested in posting on this forum much. You and I have both known for a long time that my posts tend to attract both irresponsible posters as well as competent ones. The problem has always been that many responsible posters would like to converse with me, but they often give up when they see a dogpile. There is a very simple way to fix the dogpiles. Ban those creating the dogpiles. Or at least control them. Then you will have a nice forum. I've given this advice at several forums. Maybe you'll be the first to take my advice.
Why don't you ask her if you can have privileges to delete posts and ban posters yourself? That went over big at the last few boards where you suggested it. :p:p:p:p

[Faid]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, deny the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.Dave, this post is off-topic.

It says nothing about blind testing, as you claim in your title: it is just an assertion that some geologists, in 1966, felt that RM dating was of questionable use, if it didn't agree with their notions. That would (or would not) be the case, whether or not blind testing was carried. Blind testing is a red herring in the issue the quote refers to.

Please delete this post. :p

[VoxRat]

Why don't you ask her if you can have privileges to delete posts and ban posters yourself? That went over big at the last few boards where you suggested it. :p:p:p:p
I'm seeing a groundswell of support for this (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=19016#post19016)

[Occam's Aftershave]

Why don't you ask her if you can have privileges to delete posts and ban posters yourself? That went over big at the last few boards where you suggested it.
I'm seeing a groundswell of support for this (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=19016#post19016)
Hawkins for Moderator. :eek:

I about spit my coffee, then I remembered what day it was. :D

Good one Voxy! ;)

[Mike PSS]

Again, this thread is about blind testing in the field of radiometric dating. It appears that no off topic posts from this thread have been split off.
You haven't replies to my ON TOPIC post number six where I linked the Lake Suigetsu 14C measurements with the Groningen AMS lab.

And there is some pretty interesting information about the level of precision of the Groningen facility in that article. So get readin' and commentin'.

Oh, and for blind testing we always have the TIRI and FIRI studies done by Radiocarbon.

PART 1: THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (FIRI)
PART 2: THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOCARBON INTERCOMPARISON (TIRI) (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/index.php/objectviewer?o=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume45/Number2/azu_radiocarbon_v45_n2_v.pdf)

1.6 FINAL SAMPLE LIST
A short list of 7 materials was identified as core samples having met the criteria previously identified and is given in Table 1.10. Three sets of duplicate samples were provided blind (Kauri, Belfast wood, and barley mash). The optional sample list then included Cambridge cellulose (Sample K), Dogee Barrow wood (Sample L), St Bees whole peat (Sample M), 3 mammoth tusk samples (Samples N, O, and P), and leather (Sample Q).

Table 1.10 Core sample descriptions
Core sample description FIRI code Age/Activity
Kauri wood A, B Near background
Marine turbidite C ~3 half-lives
Belfast dendro-dated wood D, F ~1 half-life
Humic acid E ~2 half-lives
Barley mash G, J modern
Hohenheim wood H <1 half-life
Belfast dendro-dated cellulose I ~1 half-life

1.6.1 Instructions and Information Sent to All Participating Laboratories
The samples were then sent to laboratories in August/September 1999. A brief description of the pretreatment undertaken in the laboratory before dispatch and instructions concerning sample pretreatment (if any) before dating were provided to the participating laboratories. The duplicate samples were not identified and laboratories were asked to treat the samples using their routinelaboratory procedures.

A total of 120 sets of samples were dispatched.

For Samples A and B, the laboratories were told that these samples should be considered as close to, or beyond, the limit of 14C detection.

For Sample C, laboratories were told that this sample should be fully hydrolyzed and no fractions should be measured. It was emphasized that this sample required no further pretreatment and that pre-etching had been shown to produce small, but significant, age differences. The laboratories were also informed that this sample should be stored in a sealed container.

There you go Dave. Blind testing with 7 samples, only two of which the labs had an inkling what the age was (near detection limit). And that instruction was on only one of three of the same sample. So you had one sample tested with an expected age but two samples were blind of the same material.

What do you think they found? Well, lets look at some results that are displaced by around eight years shall we.

It is also of interest to compare the 2 samples that are common in both TIRI and FIRI. These are the TIRI-B and FIRI-D and FIRI-F (Belfast pine), and TIRI-K and FIRI-C (marine turbidite from the same source).

Table 6.2 TIRI and FIRI samples in common
Sample description Consensus value True age Estimated precision (1σ)
TIRI-B: Belfast dendro-dated wood 4503 yr BP 3200-3239 BC (14C age 4495 BP) 6
FIRI-D, F: Belfast dendro-dated wood 4508 yr BP 3200-3239 BC
(14C age 4495 BP) 3

TIRI-K: turbidite 18,155 yr BP — 34
FIRI-C: turbidite 18,176 yr BP — 10.5

The consensus values, as estimated from the 2 different studies, are virtually identical. The estimated precisions are different. This is likely due to 3 reasons: a) the larger number of laboratories that participated in FIRI compared to TIRI; b) the tighter screening criteria used in FIRI; and c) the reduced scatter in the set of measurements once outliers have been removed.

So go find those anomolies (they exist). Go find those outliers (they exist). Go find all the faults in the 85 labs that did this study. Then come back here with a straight face and say that these labs don't do blind testing. :banana:

[RAFH]

Dr. Kirk Bertsche worked as an accelerator physicist at a leading AMS lab according to his post HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916).

Later, when I asked him this question ... A question for Kirk ...

Is AMS testing such as this normally done "blind"? That is does the lab know the approximate age that the sample is expected to be? He answered thusly ...

The folks preparing the samples normally want to know as much as possible about the samples, so they can use the appropriate pretreatments. This often includes knowing the approximate date.

The samples are then assigned numbers and are measured. Sometimes the measurement is by the same folks and sometimes by different people, so in some cases they know the approximate ages and in other cases they don't. But generally someone in the lab knows the approximate age.

Notable exceptions are the measurements of the Shroud of Turin and the subsequent international intercomparisons every few years. These intercomparisons are all done blind.

Kirk

This seems to support creationist John Woodmorappe's discussion of this topic referenced HERE (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779). Yes, we're talking about long age isotopes vs. short, but it seems that non-blind testing is the norm with both.

And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp), where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

There is a very good reason why a single test result is not the basis of overthrowing an entire paradigm.

Would you vote someone out of office if one person voted against them? Would you take the one doctor's opinion out of 6 that you don't have cancer which if untreated will kill you in a horrible manner over the next six months? Yes, that one opinion is very comforting, nobody wants to go through surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, it is devastating, nearly as bad as the cancer, but you will probably survive it. So yeah, that looks good, but are you going to risk your life on it?

If you ask 100 people what they like best, are you going to report it was that one person who likeed A or the 30 or so people that liked B or the 60 people that liked C? Well, obviously, the answer is not A, even if that's what you personally like. I suppose one could go with B, but the real answer, the one that most people like, by a very wide margin, is C. Do you get it, davey of kids4truth and truth matters?

If you get six estimates on fixing the dent on your car, are you going to take the one that's $50 or one of the four that are in the range of $400 to $500 or the one that is $1200? Think about it, the $1200 quote is way high and besides you sort of know that a dent like this should could about $400 to $500, and while that $50 quote is very attractive, you know its way low and there's a very high probability the repairman is either highly unexperienced or a scam artist and it will probably end up costing you more to fix the damage he does than just paying the usual $400 to $500. Do you get it davey? There is such a thing as common sense, however, you seem to have not gotten your allotment.

If you had your blood pressure taken 50 times over a day by a number of different staff and most of the readings, say 43 of them, were in the range of 180/120 and a few, say 4, were above that at around 200/150 and a few, say 2, were below that with one at 160/110 and another at 150/108 and then there was one that was 120/60. What would you say was your blood pressure? Would you accept the doctor's advice that you should take a blood pressure medicine, lose some weight, get more exercise and eat a better diet or would you just figure he's a fool and that one measurement shows you are A-OK, even though it was taken by a very nervous and highly inexperienced nurses assistant who it turns out was using a faulty sphygmomanometer?

Do you understand now why basic decisions are not made on the basis of anomalies? So they found a anomaly. It was well beyond what 99.99% pf the available evidence says was reasonable. Sure, that one piece of evidence says one thing, but 99.99% of the evidence says something else. So do you go with 99.99% of the evidence or 0.01%? Common sense and statistics say you go with the 99.99% and that there is a high probability of there being some sort of mistake or contamination with that 0.01%. Maybe one should look at that 0.01% to see if that is a possibility. As it turns out, that was likely the case. That doesn't mean one just blithely ignores that anomaly, and I assure you, if you look into the details of the case, you will find it was not just tossed out and forgotten. The evidence of that is that you even know it happened. Think about it, if they really felt that data was consequential and embarrassing, why would they have recorded it in the first place, why not just toss it and make no mention of it at all?

But twits like you, davey, Teh Great Bluffoon, yeah, you don't even see that if they wanted to bury the data about that skull, they very well could have and you would never have known about it. The only reason you do know about it is they were honest and reported the anomaly, just like real scientists are supposed to do. Yeah, you would go with the 0.01%. You expect everything to be perfect, either absolutely 100% right or absolutely 100% wrong. No grays for davey, uh uh! Everything is black or white, yes or no. Well, except parts of your mythology where it conflicts internally or with observable reality, and that's just, well, something that should be ignored or we just aren't interpreting it the right way. Yeah, right.

Reality doesn't work that way, davey. Particularly human reality wherein there are many possible causes of error, misunderstanding, failure to comprehend, lack of complete information, misjudgement and, yes, bias. That's why science goes with the consilience, you remember that word, don't you davey? The idea that something that has a lot of support from many independent sources is more likely to be the answer than a solitary result that has no independent support. It's an important concept that you seem to be utterly blind to, that you just can't accept, primarily because it would eliminate your anomalies and your gaps and then your mythological gawd would have nowhere to hide and you'd have to face reality and admit you are a fool. Couldn't do that though. Too much at stake. Couldn't just throw away all your beliefs for something as inconsequential as reality.

You're a real piece of work davey. I've never seen anyone so unsure of themselves, so lacking in faith that you need to play all these little games to try and reassure yourself you really do believe. Just the fact you have to reassure yourself is evidence of a lack of faith. That you need to convince others is the same sort of evidence of your lack of faith. But it's the resort to quote-mining, lying, misrepresentation, and silly arguments like this one that really exposes your faithlessness. Others have suggested it before davey, but you really should take Augustine's admonition to heart. You know the one I am referring to.

But your lack of faith is so great you can't help yourself. So you flail about and make a fool of yourself and your worldview, you embarrass honest xians and you spur others to abandon their faith. So, keep it up davey, but you really should try to upgrade your arguments, you really should. They are weak and so obviously so. It's almost embarrassing to address them, which is why I haven't addressed your argument by the whole notion of the argument you are making. That of the single anomaly of questionable origin is more important than the consilience of large amounts of independent data. That's the part you just don't get, that's why you focus on glitches and gaps rather than the body of the evidence. You know you can't defeat the body, it's way to great, so you hope to create doubt by doting on the details. Like I said, it's embarrassing, for you and your world view. I pity you.

[RAFH]

I'd be tempted to think this is just an April Fool's joke by Dave, except for the fact that he posts repetitive stupidity like this 365 days a year. :rolleyes:

The problem is that for davey, Teh Great Bluffoon davey, being a fool isn't a one day a year occurrence, it's a constant condition.

[Mike PSS]

sphygmomanometer
SMEGMAWHAAATDOHICKY???!!!

Say that tens times fast.
http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/yipyip1.jpg

OT: Note that the image linked is from venganza.org. The article is titled "Yip-Yips - evidence of FSM?" (http://www.venganza.org/2007/09/25/yip-yips.htm)

[deadman_932]

I see Dave is still operating under the dictum that telling a falsehood long enough and often enough makes it "true."

Edit... "junior member?" I resent that. I'm HUGE!! Magnelephant!!

[Pappy Jack]

Febble ... The other thread was about "varve" terminology. This thread is about blind testing. Your question pertains to THIS thread, not the other. But if you want me to answer your question (which I will only do on THIS thread since this thread is what it pertains to) then please delete all the off topic posts from THIS thread. If you start locking and merging, I may not be interested in posting on this forum much. You and I have both known for a long time that my posts tend to attract both irresponsible posters as well as competent ones. The problem has always been that many responsible posters would like to converse with me, but they often give up when they see a dogpile. There is a very simple way to fix the dogpiles. Ban those creating the dogpiles. Or at least control them. Then you will have a nice forum. I've given this advice at several forums. Maybe you'll be the first to take my advice.
Dave seems to be having something of a hissy-fit in this thread. It is also interesting that he abrogates to himself the right to decide who is a 'competent' poster and who is an 'irresponsible' one (I know which category he thinks I fit into, but at least I know I'm in good company). Maybe he should just limit himself to posting at that bastion of responsible inquiry, Truthmatters.Info, where he can delete and edit other posters comments to his heart's content. Regrettably (for Dave), so long as he continues to post tard, misrepresentation and accusation on public fora, he's going to get challenged on it, so he can either live with it or do the other.

So this thread is about C14 blind testing in labs? I have no idea why Dave thinks this is relevant, given the quality control measures he's already been told that these labs are subject to. Maybe he should check out some of the lab protocols that are available online and tell us exactly what he finds so objectionable - apart, that is, from the fact that they return results he doesn't like because they invalidate a bizarre belief in literal Creationism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps Dave thinks medical labs should blind test all biopsies and other medical specimens to avoid preconceived assumptions about what the results should show? Heavens, maybe the referring medics even label some of their specimens with requests for specific tests? How might that skew the results? Maybe we should demand that any medical samples taken from us for analysis be blind-tested in every way possible to avoid bias on the technicians' parts?

[RAFH]

Febble ... The other thread was about "varve" terminology. This thread is about blind testing. Your question pertains to THIS thread, not the other. But if you want me to answer your question (which I will only do on THIS thread since this thread is what it pertains to) then please delete all the off topic posts from THIS thread. If you start locking and merging, I may not be interested in posting on this forum much. You and I have both known for a long time that my posts tend to attract both irresponsible posters as well as competent ones. The problem has always been that many responsible posters would like to converse with me, but they often give up when they see a dogpile. There is a very simple way to fix the dogpiles. Ban those creating the dogpiles. Or at least control them. Then you will have a nice forum. I've given this advice at several forums. Maybe you'll be the first to take my advice.

Wow, don't that take the cake? davey really thinks he's large and in charge. What a fucking twit. I've noted this behavior before. davey is seeking attention and loves it when he feels he can order people around and get them to do this and that. He doesn't like it when he is questioned and held to account for his misrepresentations and quotemines, when he is reminded of promises made and and forgotten.

What a pimple on the ass of creation(ism).

[RAFH]

What can you provide us that we can't provide ourselves by reposting your threads ourselves and ignoring the responses?

This place would be better without you if you're not going to contribute honestly to discussions.

Tell you what guys. If Dave leaves, I'll take over for him.

Me too, I can do a fairly mean impersonation of an ass, even a creaIDiot ass.

[RAFH]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123And yet, when I, a creationist, denies the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.
Oh boy Dave! A 40+ year old out of context quote you got from a Creationist journal! You've sure convinced me! :p

Are you just pulling our leg today, pretending to be this big of a dork? With you it's hard to tell...

Nah, davey pretends to be this big of a dork every day. He lives in daveyland, sometimes also called April Fools land where it's April all year long.

[Dlx2]

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

I was right in that other thread. I have now rejected the null hypothesis of woefully ignorant and am forced to accept the experimental hypothesis of malicious ignorance.

You will get no more in-depth responses from me on any subject. I suspect that other members here will soon follow my lead.

[Ian Nerr]

It would have been a cool April Fool's joke if Dave posted something intelligent and/or honest.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

It certainly appears that 'malicious ignorance' understates the case.
I'm not sure I've ever seen more overweening arrogance combined with easily-wounded [and entirely groundless] pride.
Encountering dave and tracking his history on the web has been quite an eye opener, I can assure of that!
Nurse Durkin is still suffering the vapors from the spillover of my reactions to what I found...

regards,
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin, temporarily indisposed

[RAFH]

I see Dave is still operating under the dictum that telling a falsehood long enough and often enough makes it "true."

Edit... "junior member?" I resent that. I'm HUGE!! Magnelephant!!

Well then, change it in your profile. Cripes, are you dead or something?

[RAFH]

Febble ... The other thread was about "varve" terminology. This thread is about blind testing. Your question pertains to THIS thread, not the other. But if you want me to answer your question (which I will only do on THIS thread since this thread is what it pertains to) then please delete all the off topic posts from THIS thread. If you start locking and merging, I may not be interested in posting on this forum much. You and I have both known for a long time that my posts tend to attract both irresponsible posters as well as competent ones. The problem has always been that many responsible posters would like to converse with me, but they often give up when they see a dogpile. There is a very simple way to fix the dogpiles. Ban those creating the dogpiles. Or at least control them. Then you will have a nice forum. I've given this advice at several forums. Maybe you'll be the first to take my advice.
Dave seems to be having something of a hissy-fit in this thread. It is also interesting that he abrogates to himself the right to decide who is a 'competent' poster and who is an 'irresponsible' one (I know which category he thinks I fit into, but at least I know I'm in good company). Maybe he should just limit himself to posting at that bastion of responsible inquiry, Truthmatters.Info, where he can delete and edit other posters comments to his heart's content. Regrettably (for Dave), so long as he continues to post tard, misrepresentation and accusation on public fora, he's going to get challenged on it, so he can either live with it or do the other.

So this thread is about C14 blind testing in labs? I have no idea why Dave thinks this is relevant, given the quality control measures he's already been told that these labs are subject to. Maybe he should check out some of the lab protocols that are available online and tell us exactly what he finds so objectionable - apart, that is, from the fact that they return results he doesn't like because they invalidate a bizarre belief in literal Creationism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps Dave thinks medical labs should blind test all biopsies and other medical specimens to avoid preconceived assumptions about what the results should show? Heavens, maybe the referring medics even label some of their specimens with requests for specific tests? How might that skew the results? Maybe we should demand that any medical samples taken from us for analysis be blind-tested in every way possible to avoid bias on the technicians' parts?

Maybe he should put his money and reputation where his mouth is and take up Jon F's offer to test the labs:

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.

But his response was predictable:... ...
I'm interested in hearing the details of JonF's experiment proposal ... not committing to anything lest I be called a welcher by Glenn, but I'm interested at least.

Of course he won't agree to it, because he knows he would have to welch on the deal. He knows what the results will be, he knows they will completely invalidate his claims and he would have to either welch on his commitment or give up his fantasy myth. Which do you think Teh Great Bluffoon davey will do? Is there any doubt in the matter? He doesn't seem to think so. He's already said as much that he'd have to welch on the deal.

What a sad little man davey of kids4truth and truth matters. The former is a joke, it's not a site by kids seeking the truth or expressing it, it's nothing more than slick and fun propoganda to mislead kids. And the latter, truth matters? What a joke that is, davey wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass, which has been proven repeatedly as almost all his baseless assertions come back to bite him on the ass. Har-de-har-har-har.

But please do keep it up davey, we need you as an example of the dangers of fundamentia.

[Constant Mews]

Dave, if I may make a suggestion: the supply of online forums willing to entertain your ignorance of science, inability to reason, and general dishonesty is limited. Now that you have worn out your welcome on ATBC, RD, IIDB, TW, and RNR, you might want to consider a bit of soul-searching: you have already shown in this thread alone that you still refuse to actually engage in discussion. You have already shown that you refuse to address any serious questions of your position or behavior. You have already shown that you quote-mine - which you have admitted is dishonest. This does not bode well for your future survival.

[Constant Mews]

Part of the problem may be that Dave has never been schooled in how to actually do research -- in terms of searching the literature. I know it's been hammered into my head not to use articles more than 10 years old. In some cases, articles more than 7 years old were considered unusable.

He's relying on things printed over 30 years ago, and thinks that when scientists change their minds based on new evidence that something must have been wrong in the first place. I don't think Dave understands how a field of knowledge grows over time, considering that he bases his world view on a book written well over 2000 years ago (for the most part). And that book is supposed to be an "unchanging truth."

I'm guessing he never had to write research papers or do original research in his life, and truly does not know how one goes about doing it.

There is certainly a great gap in his ability to lay out his points and 'arguments' and the style used by actual researchers. I suspect this is why he has so much trouble with actual scientific literature and never actually reads any (a brief skim of abstracts trying to find words that seem to support his case does not constitute 'reading'). Science, and the rational, objective, coherent thinking patterns that it demands are genuinely foreign to Dave. He is not even really an engineer - just a businessman who got lucky. That hardly requires rigorous analytical skills.

Though I would have thought it required certain interpersonal skills that Dave seems sadly lacking in as well. :p

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, if I may make a suggestion: the supply of online forums willing to entertain your ignorance of science, inability to reason, and general dishonesty is limited. Now that you have worn out your welcome on ATBC, RD, IIDB, TW, and RNR, you might want to consider a bit of soul-searching: you have already shown in this thread alone that you still refuse to actually engage in discussion. You have already shown that you refuse to address any serious questions of your position or behavior. You have already shown that you quote-mine - which you have admitted is dishonest. This does not bode well for your future survival.Constant Mews is probably the winner in the poster child contest for the type of dogmatic evolutionist DLX2 was talking about. If most of what he posted were true and he only mixed in a little error, he might be an effective warrior in the cause of evolutionary propagandizing. However, when you're only 1 for 5 it's tough to be effective. BTW, welcome CM. Got anything to say about the OP?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, if I may make a suggestion: the supply of online forums willing to entertain your ignorance of science, inability to reason, and general dishonesty is limited. Now that you have worn out your welcome on ATBC, RD, IIDB, TW, and RNR, you might want to consider a bit of soul-searching: you have already shown in this thread alone that you still refuse to actually engage in discussion. You have already shown that you refuse to address any serious questions of your position or behavior. You have already shown that you quote-mine - which you have admitted is dishonest. This does not bode well for your future survival.Constant Mews is probably the winner in the poster child contest for the type of dogmatic evolutionist DLX2 was talking about. If most of what he posted were true and he only mixed in a little error, he might be an effective warrior in the cause of evolutionary propagandizing. However, when you're only 1 for 5 it's tough to be effective.

OK Dave, prove CM wrong.

Discuss why the Suigetsu varves have empirically measured pMC values that decrease exponentially with depth.

You're talking about Suigetsu and varves on at least 3 different threads at once Dave. Pick any one and we'll have a serious discussion on the above topic - you up for it? Or is CM right?

[Constant Mews]

Dave, if I may make a suggestion: the supply of online forums willing to entertain your ignorance of science, inability to reason, and general dishonesty is limited. Now that you have worn out your welcome on ATBC, RD, IIDB, TW, and RNR, you might want to consider a bit of soul-searching: you have already shown in this thread alone that you still refuse to actually engage in discussion. You have already shown that you refuse to address any serious questions of your position or behavior. You have already shown that you quote-mine - which you have admitted is dishonest. This does not bode well for your future survival.Constant Mews is probably the winner in the poster child contest for the type of dogmatic evolutionist DLX2 was talking about. If most of what he posted were true and he only mixed in a little error, he might be an effective warrior in the cause of evolutionary propagandizing. However, when you're only 1 for 5 it's tough to be effective. BTW, welcome CM. Got anything to say about the OP?
Prove it, Dave. You made the assertion, you prove it. Or are you unable to do so?

[Constant Mews]

It is no more possible to do all radiometric dating 'blind' than it is possible to propose measuring every single object in the universe without knowing the approximate size. Your contention is irrational, in much the same way a person would be who came to an engineer and said "please measure this thingummy". The engineer might say, "well, should I bring a tape measure, a yardstick, a micrometer, a telescope?" Dave Hawkins would say, "you LIAR! YOU ATHEIST! YOU SHOULDN'T BE ASKING THAT QUESTION."

Again, Dave's contention shows an inability to understand how science works. He fails to understand the basics of approximation and refinement. He fails to understand how well-tested the metrics (via consilience, of course) actually are.

Mike PSS already demonstrated that the various radiometric labs ARE blind-tested at regular intervals. Dave would have scientists waste enormous amounts of time and money testing multiple times. Apparently Dave doesn't understand much about finances, either.

[Dave Hawkins]

You listed 5 forums and you got your facts right about 1 of them -- AtBC.

[Constant Mews]

In all honesty, Dave - do you understand the economics of science at all? Do you understand that we don't test the tools and methodology every single time we perform an experiment because the cost in time and money would be prohibitive? As an engineer, would you advocate that we stress-test every single piece of steel that goes into an apartment building?

And you lie when you say that every other area of science does continual blind-testing. They don't.

Learn something about science, Dave - not just the practice of it, but the real-world fashion in which it is conducted. You might enjoy the experience. Certainly it would garner you some respect (something you're sadly lacking in right now). I heard a rumor you quit RNR because you became embarrassed by your low reputation score. Any truth in that?

[Constant Mews]

You listed 5 forums and you got your facts right about 1 of them -- AtBC.

You abandoned every single on of those forums when your arguments were shredded beyond recovery. You've hundreds of unanswered questions on every single one of them. You've never honestly engaged in discussion on any forum I've seen. You don't have to have restrictions placed on your posting privileges to 'wear out your welcome'. Are you honestly dumb enough to think that?

Don't be dishonest on the internet, Dave. It's too easy to check that you are making false statements. Anyone here or any lurker who doesn't yet know you can easily look at your behavior on all those forums.

And you were never banned from any of them. Even ATBC just suggested you begin posting elsewhere. So you lied about ATBC. Be ashamed, Dave.

[Occam's Aftershave]

You listed 5 forums and you got your facts right about 1 of them -- AtBC.
He didn't say you got banned on all 5, he said you wore out your welcome, which you did in spades. On everyone one of those forums you united a bunch of complete strangers into a coherent voice descrying your constant lying, quote-mining, and cowardly evading of all scientific discussions. Your "lowlight" had to be TWeb, where even the devout Christians there called you on you despicable behavior. You ran from TWeb because you couldn't stand the embarrassment Dave, and everyone there knows it.

Now, are you going to discuss the Suigetsu pMC values, or will you continue to evade and prove CM right?

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

As a recent researcher of these topics, I would have to say:
Constant Mews: 1
Dave Hawkins: 0

Truth favors CM, and dave appears to hate and fear the truth.
The evidence is out there.

regards,
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin, who appears to be losing patience
Note: we've never lost a patient! only patience

[Constant Mews]

The selective memory of creationists is legendary, but another, less well-understood issue is their confusion with regard to terminology. Dave is (as always) an excellent example of this problem. My apologies, Dave, I'm not picking on you - just using you to illustrate a point.

What Dave understands by truth is a fact which conforms to a specific, narrow, internally inconsistent reading of the Christian Bible. All other things are 'not-truth'. Other words are also subject to complex interpretation. To use the present case, Dave understands "wear out your welcome" as "banned", though these are not, in fact, synonymous concepts. We see the same problem with regard to Dave's misunderstanding and consequently misrepresentation of KBertsche's statements.

KB says, "researchers discard results which are internally inconsistent - typically they they then look for the cause of the inconsistency".

Dave claims that KB's statement is synonymous with "researchers ROUTINELY discard results which don't match their NON-BIBLICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS."

You see the difficulty? Dave doesn't actually realize that his understanding of KB is completely wrong. But when pressed to defend it, he changes the subject or claims it's no longer relevant. The fact that he does the latter indicates that he knows perfectly well that he is wrong, but his ego won't permit him to admit that in public.

[Febble]

OK guys, chill for a bit, and welcome to Constant Mews.

And I'd rather we didn't have a cat-fight about what did or not happen on other forums, even though we all know stuff did. People start with a clean slate here, and that includes CM as well as Dave.

Feel free to discuss the OP, but try for now to ignore baggage from other forums. If you can't, we may split out some of this stuff to the compost heap, for it to flower or rot as you see fit.

And Dave, please don't make claims that scientists have "admitted" or "confirmed" things that they have not. The scientist in question has explicitly repudiated your characterisation of his comments.

But feel free to discuss blinding protocols for radiocarbon testing labs. It's potentially a worthwhile topic.


ETA: if you can't find your post, it's probably in TCR.

[Febble]

Dave, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that blind-testing protocols are a Good Thing. But who is blinded to what will depend on the question being asked.

What perhaps you don't appreciate is that most scientists are simply not interested in the question as to whether the earth is more than 6,000 years old. They've been there, done that. However, what they MAY be interested in is, say, climate changes around 20,000-30,000 years ago. So they take a core of sediment or ice that they have good reason to believe was laid down during that period, and they tell the lab roughly how old they think it is.

That's because they aren't interested in how old their core is. They know how old it is. What they ARE interested in, are the ages of samples within the core. And for that, the samples should probably be randomised, and the testers blinded.

However, if you are asking a different question, say "is the earth more than 6,000 years old?" then clearly a different kind of blinding protocol would have to be undertaken.

All scientific methodology depends on the question you are asking. And one problem I think creationists have is that they are trying to answer their own question: "how old is the earth?" by reference to studies that asked quite different questions.

So what you need to do is to find a study where the answer will give you a minimum age for the earth and the samples were randomised tested blind.

For example, as I understand it, some of the studies of Lake Suigetsu.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that. IIRC people at TWeb were saying things like "Dave, you're such a moron ... Of course they aren't told the ages prior to testing" ... But Oops ... Dr Bertsche contradicted them.

Now you said something interesting ... You said these researchers already know the approximate ages before they go into the test. Really? How do they know? Does the sample have a label? Did God tell them? And is this the case with long decay isotopes as well as short?

Think for a moment the ramifications of what you just said. Peel away all the anti-Dave propaganda you see on my threads and just think ... Rationally.

[Febble]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that.

Well, it should change that. If your interpretation of his words was incorrect, and he corrected it, then you need to accept that what you thought he meant wasn't what he meant. Your allegation was that samples were thrown out if they didn't produce the expected age. Dr Bertsche made it quite clear that this was not the case - that the sample was thrown out if it could not be dated, regardless of what age it was supposed to be.

IIRC people at TWeb were saying things like "Dave, you're such a moron ... Of course they aren't told the ages prior to testing" ... But Oops ... Dr Bertsche contradicted them.

But you misinterpreted what he meant by that. It seems you still are.

Now you said something interesting ... You said these researchers already know the approximate ages before they go into the test. Really? How do they know? Does the sample have a label? Did God tell them? And is this the case with long decay isotopes as well as short?

It will depend on the sample, and, as I said, on the question being asked.

Think for a moment the ramifications of what you just said. Peel away all the anti-Dave propaganda you see on my threads and just think ... Rationally.

I'm thinking perfectly rationally, Dave. But it seems that you have still misunderstood the issues here. And I note that you still have not responded to my earlier post where I tried to clarify the issue with regard to the "thumb-sized" piece of wood from Jericho.

You need to blind where there is a possibility that knowing approximate value may bias the estimate. If that knowledge can't bias the estimate, then you don't need to blind. And whether it can or not will depend on the question being asked.

Knowing how far down the street my house is cannot possibly bias your estimate of how much fabric I will need to curtain my windows, but it will certainly save you some time when you are trying to find my house.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.

[Steviepinhead]

Febble:
Knowing how far down the street my house is cannot possibly bias your estimate of how much fabric I will need to curtain my windows, but it will certainly save you some time when you are trying to find my house.
Pos-Rep needed once more. Very telling last paragraph, Febble! Not that dave will notice (well, on one level, it will make no difference; on another level, I suspect one of the attractions for dave of dealing with some of the folks here is that our continued efforts to pound sense into him does confer a measure of respect which he finds nowhere else...).

Dave, will it ever occur to you to engage with the concepts themselves, rather than your caricatures of them?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ...
Yes Dave, and he also explained in excruciating detail why the approximate range (not precise dates) was necessary, and how anomalous results are NOT discarded but rechecked for contamination. If no contamination is found the outlying dates are reported as they were measured.

Q. Interesting. So lets get to the heart of what this means. By saying someone at the lab knows the expected approximate age of the sample, the door is open for the accusation that bias will force the 'correct' date. But it also seems clear that information about the sample must be available to properly pretreat the sample. So Kirk, could you clarify how the lab avoids biasing the result by this a priori knowledge of what is the 'expected' result?

For example, I could imagine something like: They know where the sample came from and its environment to properly pretreat the item. But I would hope known the expected age would not govern pretreatment, unless perhaps that issue might be related to cost (pretreating items expected to be very old may be more expensive as one has a higher tolerance for trace contamination in younger samples?) But if it does, how does this avoid biasing the result?

A. Dr. Bertsche: Yes, it's primarily the setting, condition, material, etc of the sample which they want to know for proper sample preparation. The rough age is helpful mainly to avoid cross-contamination.

Q. Next, how is this expected age handled so as not to force the expected result? A 'safe' way would be that if the 'wrong' date comes back, it would force a thorough check for contamination or violation of procedure, but no manipulation of the date itself, followed by a very, very careful retest of another sample from the same item.

A. Dr.Bertsche: Yes, this is what would normally be done.

Q. It would seem to me then that only if some kind of obvious mistake was found in how the first sample was tested and multiple retests under the corrected procedures result in a consistent date would the first result be discarded. Finally, would all results be reported (with an asterisk perhaps over the odd result?)

Anyway - could you please flesh out how this is handled. Otherwise, AFDave now has ammunition (small caliber) with which to continue his case that c14 labs are only dating to expected result.


A. Dr.Bertsche: A date not coming out as one would expect is not sufficient reason to discard it. (Otherwise some of the folks would not have reported their dates for the Shroud of Turin.) It is reason to look back and be sure that there was no evidence of laboratory contamination, and perhaps to run another sample to be sure of the date. If this checks out, the date would be reported as-is, perhaps with an explanatory note.

If problems are found (contamination, etc.) and the corrupted date is not helpful to the research at hand, it would probably not be reported. But it may be helpful for some sort of separate contamination discussion, so might be reported in this context in the main paper or in a separate paper.

source (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2211887&postcount=237)

That you continue to lie about and misrepresent what Dr. Bertsche said only makes you look like a bigger dishonest turd than ever.

[Mike PSS]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.
Dave,
Are you going to answer the pertinent counter-points in my post about blind testing of labs?

Are you going to answer teh pertinent counter-points of the Groningen AMS lab capabilities?

Are YOU going to address those few on-topic posts you so much want to see?

Or is this just some masturbatory discussion about intentions and semantics.

[JonF]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you
Dr. Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages usually are known by someone in the lab, not necessarily the testers prior to testing. That's not "approximate ages are known prior to testing". But nobody's worried much about that.

What bothers people is your claim that he said that dates are discarded for not conforming to expectations, which he never did. And he confirmed, explicitly, over and over and over again, that dates are not discarded for failing to meet explanations.

... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.
He never repudiated anything. He did reiterate, and he chided you for dishonestly distorting his obvious meaning.

When you check on the context, point out explicitly where he used the phrase "for failing to meet expectations" or an equivalent phrase or reference when writing of discarding dates. You'll find he never did.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.
Then explain, and list the preconceptions and exactly how they affected the testing in each of the studies, including references to all the relevant Nature papers (which we know are available to you ... and I've got most of them), covering the entire history of the dating of the KBS Tuff from 1969 to 1985. Especially discuss Fitch and Miller's studies and what data and reasoning leads you to reject their reasoning. Discuss the constituents of the tuff and their contributions (or lack thereof) to errors, and why they do or do not contribute. Discuss why any discarded results were discarded, especially including quotes from the relevant papers, and if you disagree with the stated reasons for discarding the results ... lay out the data and reasoning that leads you to disagree.

Since the affect of the preconceptions is so blatant, should be a piece of cake. Unless, of course, you're just parroting AIG withuot any idea of what you're talking about.

[Faid]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow. First of all, dave, let's get some thing straight, because it is obvious you are trying to obfuscate the issue.
Which statements from Kirk Bertsche are you referring to here?

Bertsche agreed that test labs have some knowledge of the APPROXIMATE age of the sample. I believe his words were something like "usually someone at in the lab knows of the approximate age, one way or another". So this statement is TRUE.

But Bertsche also explained, FROM THE START (so there was no "what I meant was..." as you shamelessly claim), that the dates are NOT discarded. He explained that they are examined and evaluated, andPUBLISHED, along with their dating history- whether they give an "agreeable" date or not.

And the "Leakey fossil" example you posted proves just that.

And then, there's this other statement, that Bertsche emphatically DENIED: that scientists compare their results with the "Expected age", and, if they disagree, immediately reject them as contamination, and make another test. That NEVER happens, as Bertsche CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY explained to you.

The ONLY time Bertsche "admitted" that dates are immediately dealt as the result of contamination, is when different parts of the same sample give dates discordant with each other. THEN, and only THEN, it is assumed that contamination takes place, because the same sample cannot have different ages in different parts- Like Kirk explained to you, THOROUGHLY, it is a matter of consistency. Any "expected ages" are irrelevant.

And THAT is whay you owe an apology to Bertsche, dave.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.Dave, I'm afraid you are a bit confused.

How, exactly, did lack of blind testing "matter" to the dating of the Leakey sample?

Think about it. Was there an "experimenter bias" during dating the sample, based on the "expected age"? But dave- The result was highly discordant with that anyway!

How would blind testing affect that? by eliminating the bias that didn't affect the date after all, and produced an anomalous result??????:dunno:

Think, dave.

[ericmurphy]

Constant Mews is probably the winner in the poster child contest for the type of dogmatic evolutionist DLX2 was talking about. If most of what he posted were true and he only mixed in a little error, he might be an effective warrior in the cause of evolutionary propagandizing. However, when you're only 1 for 5 it's tough to be effective. BTW, welcome CM. Got anything to say about the OP?

Dave, this claim of yours is pretty hard to substantiate without actually pointing to some misunderstanding or mistake CM is guilty of. To my knowledge, you've never been able to do so. Can you now? I don't think you can.

[ericmurphy]

You listed 5 forums and you got your facts right about 1 of them -- AtBC.

Money where mouth is, Dave. Point out the mistaken facts CM is guilty of, or retract.

And NB: pointing out you only had your posting privileges restricted at one of those sites will not prove your point.

[ericmurphy]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that.
Dave, you know this is false. That some tests are not blind does not mean that no tests are blind. You know for a fact that several of the tests of Suigetsu varves were in fact performed blind.

So what's you're point, exactly? It sounds like your similarly illogical claim that since some formations described (by non-scientists) as varves are not actually varves means that the Suigetsu varves are also not varves.

This is logic that would shame a six year old.

[Fathermithras]

Dr. Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages usually are known by someone in the lab, not necessarily the testers prior to testing. That's not "approximate ages are known prior to testing". But nobody's worried much about that.

This is so important that you have to be willfully closing it out if you can't see it. It's RIGHT there in the quote. Dr. Bertsche is even clear enough for me, a layman, to have understood it the first time i read the quote. He also makes it clear results aren't scrapped for failing to meet expectations, but only if they show clear signs of contamination. And a sign of contamination is NOT "failed to meet expectations of person in lab who knew possible age range" so to MISS this fact is to do so ON PURPOSE.

Olympic level mental gymnastics.

[Fathermithras]

Also, you can't explain the consilience. Checkmate.

I really can't imagine how infuriating it must be to want to say "They just lie! They know the ages and throw out all data that doesn't agree!" as you've basically done before, but know it won't work and will basically be you throwing one of your pre-reboot tantrums. Nothing is funnier than seeing dave claim we should contact all the labs and find ways to verify they weren't blatantly being fraudulent. I remember he used the phrase "We shouldn't just assume everything is honkie doorie" or some such. Really. Amazing. Creationists with no labs are paragons of honesty despite no credentials but working scientists all over the world producing consilient results are frauds.

[ericmurphy]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.

Dave, I don't know how to make it more clear to you: Several Of The Suigetsu Samples Were Tested Blind. Is there some part of this sentence that's giving you trouble?

Why do you constantly conflate "some" with all, or sometimes "some" with "none," and think no one will notice? When you've been called on the same logical fallacy over and over again, but continue to commit it, what does that say about you?

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.

Dave, it's consilience. It's not "preconceptions." I'll pull out the same example I've pounded you over the skull with over and over again: when you test the mass of the electron ten thousand times and get within 1% of 500keV 9,999 times, and one time you get 350GeV, what do you do with the 350GeV result? Do you throw your hands up and say it's impossible to determine the mass of the electron?

[Jet Black]

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

Please bear in mind that in the varve thread where this originally came up, even if they had been given approximate ages for those samples, there would still be the issue of why the offsets to the "perfect" varve age correlate with solar and climactic events recorded elsewhere and in those cores in independent manners. Do you think that the lab techs in the C14 lab somehow knew before anyone else what those offsets should be? if there is systematic faking of results, then one would expect a scattered line around the expected line where the points fell within some expected level of error, and we do not see that, we see a clear trend separating the perfect C14 age from the varve count age and when that trend is decoupled, it can be matched with other data.

[Febble]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.

I had assumed that the person who quoted his repudiation had directed him to the varve thread here, and that it was his response. If not, I would be pleased to be corrected. But on that thread you referred to "the admission by Dr. Kirk Bertsche at TWeb that results are routinely rejected if they are not close to the expected age". You need to retract this, as he made no such admission (as was clear to all except you), and explicitly repudiated it.

Although you still didn't seem to get it, as you kept quoting him, and making the same misinterpretation.

And no-one has denied that it is usual for at least someone in the lab to know the approximate age of the samples, and they have explained why.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.

Dave, I didn't say that "blind testing doesn't matter". In fact I said it was important. I also said that who is blind to what depends on the question being asked. Please stop misrepresenting other people's posts. If the question, for example is: how does radiocarbon age vary with depth of core? then clearly the subsamples from the core must be randomised and tested blind. But knowing the approximate age of the core itself cannot bias the answer to that question.

Please also provide a reference for your Leakey example.

[RAFH]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that. IIRC people at TWeb were saying things like "Dave, you're such a moron ... Of course they aren't told the ages prior to testing" ... But Oops ... Dr Bertsche contradicted them.

Now you said something interesting ... You said these researchers already know the approximate ages before they go into the test. Really? How do they know? Does the sample have a label? Did God tell them? And is this the case with long decay isotopes as well as short?

Think for a moment the ramifications of what you just said. Peel away all the anti-Dave propaganda you see on my threads and just think ... Rationally.

See what I mean, davey is so blinded by his FUNDAMENTIA, he doesn't even realize he is just digging himself deeper and deeper in his hole. It's actually rather amusing.

[RAFH]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.

davey, how can the actual quotes be hearsay? Damn you are stupid. Do you even think about what you post or does it just excrete right out of your FUNDAMETIA infected brain?

[Pappy Jack]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that. IIRC people at TWeb were saying things like "Dave, you're such a moron ... Of course they aren't told the ages prior to testing" ... But Oops ... Dr Bertsche contradicted them.

Now you said something interesting ... You said these researchers already know the approximate ages before they go into the test. Really? How do they know? Does the sample have a label? Did God tell them? And is this the case with long decay isotopes as well as short?

Think for a moment the ramifications of what you just said. Peel away all the anti-Dave propaganda you see on my threads and just think ... Rationally.

See what I mean, davey is so blinded by his FUNDAMENTIA, he doesn't even realize he is just digging himself deeper and deeper in his hole. It's actually rather amusing.
Yes, Dave is indeed so blinded by his fundamentia that he also is unable to understand the multiple explanations of how he is misunderstanding what Dr Bertsche wrote. Most people who find themselves in a minority of one on a subject would pause and review their position and ask themselves whether they were in fact mistaken; this seems to be something Dave is unable to do.

[Febble]

Can we try to keep this thread about blind testing, or at least about Dave's claims in this regard, please, and not about Dave's psychology? We have a couple of creationist psychology threads for the other stuff.

Thanks.

[RAFH]

Febble ... Dr Bertsche confirmed that approximate ages are known prior to testing. I don't know how to make this more clear to you ... As for his later repudiation of my use of his quote, I think you are just going on hear say for the context ... I will check on that tomorrow. First of all, dave, let's get some thing straight, because it is obvious you are trying to obfuscate the issue.
Which statements from Kirk Bertsche are you referring to here?

Bertsche agreed that test labs have some knowledge of the APPROXIMATE age of the sample. I believe his words were something like "usually someone at in the lab knows of the approximate age, one way or another". So this statement is TRUE.

But Bertsche also explained, FROM THE START (so there was no "what I meant was..." as you shamelessly claim), that the dates are NOT discarded. He explained that they are examined and evaluated, andPUBLISHED, along with their dating history- whether they give an "agreeable" date or not.

And the "Leakey fossil" example you posted proves just that.

And then, there's this other statement, that Bertsche emphatically DENIED: that scientists compare their results with the "Expected age", and, if they disagree, immediately reject them as contamination, and make another test. That NEVER happens, as Bertsche CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY explained to you.

The ONLY time Bertsche "admitted" that dates are immediately dealt as the result of contamination, is when different parts of the same sample give dates discordant with each other. THEN, and only THEN, it is assumed that contamination takes place, because the same sample cannot have different ages in different parts- Like Kirk explained to you, THOROUGHLY, it is a matter of consistency. Any "expected ages" are irrelevant.

And THAT is whay you owe an apology to Bertsche, dave.

I don't how you can say blind testing doesn't matter when it clearly did in the case of the Leakey fossil whose strata was originally dated at about 230 MY. This is as blatant a case of preconceptions biasing the testing as I can imagine.Dave, I'm afraid you are a bit confused.

How, exactly, did lack of blind testing "matter" to the dating of the Leakey sample?

Think about it. Was there an "experimenter bias" during dating the sample, based on the "expected age"? But dave- The result was highly discordant with that anyway!

How would blind testing affect that? by eliminating the bias that didn't affect the date after all, and produced an anomalous result??????:dunno:

Think, dave.

Faid, you ask too much, much too much. davey suffers from FUNDAMENTIA. Because of FUNDAMETIA, he thinks like gussie-sue who believes in vision rays and butterfly wombs. He thinks Walty Brown is a genius, he thinks some = all and few can = either none or some, which, of course, = all. He thinks water is 'molten ice' and that as such, ice is really no different than rock and of course, rock floats on water. He thinks that pressure applied to the inside of a spherical shell produces compression in that shell rather than tension, Hr thinks quote-mining, the deliberate misuse of statements out of context to produce a meaning contrary to the author's intent is perfectly OK. He thinks ancient manuscripts must be more accurate and reliable than modern observations of reality. And of course, he thinks Portuguese is just a combination of Spanish and French and that the city of Tyre doesn't exist.

Most of all, he thinks one particular obsessive interpretation of a translation of unprovenanced anonymous copies of unprovenanced anonymous copies of unprovenanced anonymous transcriptions of Bronze Age oral traditions picked up by one back water culture from the merchants and armies trudging through their neck of woods (whoops, I mean blasted desert) is the absolute truth about everything and anything that doesn't conform with it is obviously wrong, which is why he believes all of the above and why he suffers from FUNDAMENTIA.

And all this thinking stems from his lack of faith, because if he had faith, real faith, it wouldn't matter if science agrees with his myth or not. But davey has no such faith. He doesn't really believe, which is why he has to try to convince others. Of course, there is also his need to feel like he's in control and that he has everybody jumping about doing his bidding.

So you might as well give up trying to teach him anything or getting him to admit he is/was wrong, he can't do it. Teh best you can do is just call him on his lies and quote-mines and misrepresentations and point out his lack of faith so any lurkers, particularly those from kids4truth and truthmatters, will know what he is.

[RAFH]

Febble ... Dr. Bertsche did in fact confirm my suspicions about tests not being blind and no amount of "well what I meant was" will change that. IIRC people at TWeb were saying things like "Dave, you're such a moron ... Of course they aren't told the ages prior to testing" ... But Oops ... Dr Bertsche contradicted them.

Now you said something interesting ... You said these researchers already know the approximate ages before they go into the test. Really? How do they know? Does the sample have a label? Did God tell them? And is this the case with long decay isotopes as well as short?

Think for a moment the ramifications of what you just said. Peel away all the anti-Dave propaganda you see on my threads and just think ... Rationally.

See what I mean, davey is so blinded by his FUNDAMENTIA, he doesn't even realize he is just digging himself deeper and deeper in his hole. It's actually rather amusing.
Yes, Dave is indeed so blinded by his fundamentia that he also is unable to understand the multiple explanations of how he is misunderstanding what Dr Bertsche wrote. Most people who find themselves in a minority of one on a subject would pause and review their position and ask themselves whether they were in fact mistaken; this seems to be something Dave is unable to do.

But Pappy, davey is hot misunderstanding what Bertsche wrote, his is stating his words and attributing them to Bertsche. Frankly, davey ought to be suing himself for plagiarism.

[Dave Hawkins]

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

Please bear in mind that in the varve thread where this originally came up, even if they had been given approximate ages for those samples, there would still be the issue of why the offsets to the "perfect" varve age correlate with solar and climactic events recorded elsewhere and in those cores in independent manners. Do you think that the lab techs in the C14 lab somehow knew before anyone else what those offsets should be? if there is systematic faking of results, then one would expect a scattered line around the expected line where the points fell within some expected level of error, and we do not see that, we see a clear trend separating the perfect C14 age from the varve count age and when that trend is decoupled, it can be matched with other data.But wait a minute ... if my theory is correct--and I do say IF--then there is a perfect explanation. Here's my theory again ...

1) Calibration curve patterns are known prior to varve counting
2) Varves are counted
3) Varve ages are reported to the C14 lab along with sample submissions
4) C14 lab uses 1/100 portion of each leaf for testing
5) A C14 result of any subsample that is way out to lunch, that is, not close to the varve age is rejected (contamination, loss, etc)

[Dave Hawkins]

Can we try to keep this thread about blind testing, or at least about Dave's claims in this regard, please, and not about Dave's psychology? We have a couple of creationist psychology threads for the other stuff.

Thanks.Good luck getting them to do that.

[Barbarian]

2) Varves are counted
3) Varve ages are reported to the C14 lab along with sample submissionsStop right there. Varves are counted, we get an age well in excess of 6000 years, therefore the Earth is older than that ... so why would there be any need to fudge with C14 results at all?

[JonF]

I had assumed that the person who quoted his repudiation had directed him to the varve thread here, and that it was his response.
That assumption is correct.

[Febble]

2) Varves are counted
3) Varve ages are reported to the C14 lab along with sample submissionsStop right there. Varves are counted, we get an age well in excess of 6000 years, therefore the Earth is older than that ... so why would there be any need to fudge with C14 results at all?

I think Dave disputes that what hare referred to as varves are, in fact, annual layers.

The fact that linear correlations between both varve count and radiocarbon date, and depth and radiocarbon date is only two of many lines of evidence that confirms that the varves in question (e.g. Lake Suigetsu) are in fact varves, and there is good reason to believe that at least some of these radiocarbon datings were done blind.

In addition, the dates obtained correlate closely with dates obtained from independent processes that are linear with time, including ice cores, coral, tree rings and stalactites. The stalactite evidence is particularly interesting (was it JonF who posted it?) because the curves agree extremely closely, but are offset from each other as you would expect from the nature of the processes. So in this case the CURVES agree but the DATES do not, and should not.

It is thus extremely difficult to see how, even if the testing WASN'T blind (and there is no reason AFAIK to think it wasn't) how having an approximate idea of the age of the sample could possibly have generated an artefactual result.

We can therefore conclude that the Lake Suigetsu varves are a