Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2010, 08:22 PM   #959819  /  #676
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49,193
Pingu
Default

Dave has found a safe loop for himself, whereby he tells himself he knows enough about science to understand when it is wrong, but not enough to understand when people correct him. Similarly, he tells himself he knows enough about science to understand that creationists are right, but not enough to understand when people point out that they are not.

And so he thinks (or has persuaded himself) he is standing still, whereas in fact, he is always running in that constant circle. But because the circle is so small, he doesn't notice the slight parallax, or, if he does, blames it on scientists for being obfuscatory.

Anything rather than discover that the firm foundation on which he thinks he is standing is a slowly deepening hole.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 08:23 PM   #959820  /  #677
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,760
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
This could perhaps be just a communication barrier...
Oh, it is. It is. There's a barrier to communication.
JonF is online now   topbottom
Old 06-07-2010, 08:28 PM   #959822  /  #678
Steviepinhead
Senior Member
 
Steviepinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 31,113
Steviepinhead
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steviepinhead View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
I think the world is in urgent need of a standardized measure of closeness of knees.
Scarlett's here are too close:
<snip image>
at least you didn't show us the infamous picture of paris hilton, where here knees are nowhere near each other and her underwear was at home.
Well, I have little to no interest in what lies between PH's knees, specifically. Whereas, this was a Lizzie question, and we have a well-known tradition around here of mapping the well-designedness of Lizzie's mental interior onto the well-designedness of Scarlett's physical exterior. Which seemed sufficient to justify my use of Scarlett's knees... Then, we also have the broader tradition of TR boyz' Scarlett fandom, which runneth back to at least SteveF in its instigation, and of which the Lizzie/Scarlett mapping is a serendipitous sub-application...

Of course, in some sense, knees are knees, and our knee distance measures should be portable over the variety of knees. But, at the same time, we don't wish to overextend our knee data too far onto other anatomical features. In which case, PH's knee-spread in the image to which you refer would probably be classified as "too far," though arguably only because it includes data well outside the bounds of the current study...

Last edited by Steviepinhead; 06-07-2010 at 08:32 PM.
Steviepinhead is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 12:27 AM   #960139  /  #679
Elka
The Witchdoctor
 
Elka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MO
Posts: 3,662
Elka
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faid View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelindaP View Post

I believe there is data out there that says he did. But, Loechelt prefers not to steal the fellow's thunder who proved this.

And, are you saying that you don't try to expect the best out of people? Because you routinely call people liars.
Routinely? Who have I called a liar? Can you name even one with no help from others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by espritch View Post

So you have time to disparage the professionalism and integrity of the scientists who were willing to actually do the work in the first place but you aren't willing to do the work to back up your libel.

You aren't just ignorant; you're immoral.
Hey! That reminds me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post


Bump, Dave.

Dave?
Oh, brother...

Bump, Dave.

Bump, Bump,, Bump, Bump!


Elká
__________________
Never miss a good chance to shut up. Will Rogers
Elka is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 02:03 AM   #960295  /  #680
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,818
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a theory for why these folks keep insisting that low temp testing is invalid but won't tell us why ...

THEY KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS!
This of course is pure speculation into the motives of others. Unless you have supporting evidence, then in all fairness, the other pure speculation should be considered.

Humphreys did not tell us why he used low-temperature data when standard practice in the field is to use high-temperature data because HE KNOWS THE IMPLICATIONS!

If you think your suspicion is legitimate, then isn't it fair for others to consider the other possibility? There is actually more supporting evidence to suspect Humphreys.

1. The diffusion experimenters were not allowed to be co-authors on the paper. Therefore, their views and interpretations are not represented.

2. Humphreys never discussed why deviating from standard practice was necessary in this case. An up-front explanation would have been helpful.

3. Key results like the closure temperature were not reported. Why did he use the closure temperature from the old experiment in his discussion when he had new data?

4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?

If any one of these 4 points were different, then we would have more information to help answer the question of why so much emphasis was placed on the low-temperature data. Now we are left to speculation and guessing, and the work itself is shrouded in mystery. This is one reason I prefer using diffusion data from a source like Reiners (2004).
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory. I don't know if I'll have time to read the paper very soon.

Absolutely, it's fair for others to consider the other possibility and I for one will continue to seek the answers no matter where they lead me. I hope you have the same commitment.

As for point (1), there would have been no experiment AT ALL to co-author if Humphreys had identified himself to Farley. This is prejudice IMHO.

(2) I think the standard practice you refer to has to do with (U-Th)/He chronometry, not He diffusion dating. I don't know of anyone but the RATE Group that does He diffusion dating.

(3) I don't think closure temperature is relevant to this discussion. Humphreys discusses this.

(4) Couldn't tell you ... good question though. I will continue to try to get a response from him.

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

I think if you have read the paper you posted the abstract for, it would serve your interest to post a summary of the specific reasons they do not do low temp testing. It does seem that your whole case rests upon this issue.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 02:07 AM   #960304  /  #681
BelindaP
Senior Member
 
BelindaP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,922
BelindaP
Default

__________________
We <3 SMS.
BelindaP is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 02:12 AM   #960312  /  #682
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
... Yes, it's speculation, ...
Quote:
4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?
(4) Couldn't tell you ... good question though. I will continue to try to get a response from him.
...
No... speculations this time?

What a surprise.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 02:16 AM   #960319  /  #683
brugroffil
Super Moderator
Space Race Champion, Armor RPG G-EXP v2 Champion, Ace Blackjack Champion, Ultimate Defense Champion, Bacteria Tower Defense Champion, Fratboy Girlfriend Tower Defense Champion, Tower Defense 2007 Champion Mod: Politics and Current Affairs
 
brugroffil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Can Street
Posts: 14,309
brugroffil
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a theory for why these folks keep insisting that low temp testing is invalid but won't tell us why ...

THEY KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS!
This of course is pure speculation into the motives of others. Unless you have supporting evidence, then in all fairness, the other pure speculation should be considered.

Humphreys did not tell us why he used low-temperature data when standard practice in the field is to use high-temperature data because HE KNOWS THE IMPLICATIONS!

If you think your suspicion is legitimate, then isn't it fair for others to consider the other possibility? There is actually more supporting evidence to suspect Humphreys.

1. The diffusion experimenters were not allowed to be co-authors on the paper. Therefore, their views and interpretations are not represented.

2. Humphreys never discussed why deviating from standard practice was necessary in this case. An up-front explanation would have been helpful.

3. Key results like the closure temperature were not reported. Why did he use the closure temperature from the old experiment in his discussion when he had new data?

4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?

If any one of these 4 points were different, then we would have more information to help answer the question of why so much emphasis was placed on the low-temperature data. Now we are left to speculation and guessing, and the work itself is shrouded in mystery. This is one reason I prefer using diffusion data from a source like Reiners (2004).
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory.
Sure you do. You can accept what's supported in all of the (competent, relevant) peer-reviewed journals. What you mean is you have no other theory that you can try to shoe-horn into a few thousand years.

Quote:
(2) I think the standard practice you refer to has to do with (U-Th)/He chronometry, not He diffusion dating. I don't know of anyone but the RATE Group that does He diffusion dating.
Diffusion is diffusion. It doesn't matter if your specifically trying to date something with the diffusion rates.
brugroffil is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:15 AM   #960396  /  #684
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,818
Dave Hawkins
Default

Also, Dr. Loechelt ... did you see my "Young Earth Evidences" thread? I made it just for you because you say that YECs don't answer your questions about this topic.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is online now   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:16 AM   #960398  /  #685
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,402
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a theory for why these folks keep insisting that low temp testing is invalid but won't tell us why ...

THEY KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS!
This of course is pure speculation into the motives of others. Unless you have supporting evidence, then in all fairness, the other pure speculation should be considered.

Humphreys did not tell us why he used low-temperature data when standard practice in the field is to use high-temperature data because HE KNOWS THE IMPLICATIONS!

If you think your suspicion is legitimate, then isn't it fair for others to consider the other possibility? There is actually more supporting evidence to suspect Humphreys.

1. The diffusion experimenters were not allowed to be co-authors on the paper. Therefore, their views and interpretations are not represented.

2. Humphreys never discussed why deviating from standard practice was necessary in this case. An up-front explanation would have been helpful.

3. Key results like the closure temperature were not reported. Why did he use the closure temperature from the old experiment in his discussion when he had new data?

4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?

If any one of these 4 points were different, then we would have more information to help answer the question of why so much emphasis was placed on the low-temperature data. Now we are left to speculation and guessing, and the work itself is shrouded in mystery. This is one reason I prefer using diffusion data from a source like Reiners (2004).
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory. I don't know if I'll have time to read the paper very soon.

Absolutely, it's fair for others to consider the other possibility and I for one will continue to seek the answers no matter where they lead me. I hope you have the same commitment.

As for point (1), there would have been no experiment AT ALL to co-author if Humphreys had identified himself to Farley. This is prejudice IMHO.

(2) I think the standard practice you refer to has to do with (U-Th)/He chronometry, not He diffusion dating. I don't know of anyone but the RATE Group that does He diffusion dating.

(3) I don't think closure temperature is relevant to this discussion. Humphreys discusses this.

(4) Couldn't tell you ... good question though. I will continue to try to get a response from him.

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

I think if you have read the paper you posted the abstract for, it would serve your interest to post a summary of the specific reasons they do not do low temp testing. It does seem that your whole case rests upon this issue.
Mike PSS is online now   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:28 AM   #960414  /  #686
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a theory for why these folks keep insisting that low temp testing is invalid but won't tell us why ...

THEY KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS!
This of course is pure speculation into the motives of others. Unless you have supporting evidence, then in all fairness, the other pure speculation should be considered.

Humphreys did not tell us why he used low-temperature data when standard practice in the field is to use high-temperature data because HE KNOWS THE IMPLICATIONS!

If you think your suspicion is legitimate, then isn't it fair for others to consider the other possibility? There is actually more supporting evidence to suspect Humphreys.

1. The diffusion experimenters were not allowed to be co-authors on the paper. Therefore, their views and interpretations are not represented.

2. Humphreys never discussed why deviating from standard practice was necessary in this case. An up-front explanation would have been helpful.

3. Key results like the closure temperature were not reported. Why did he use the closure temperature from the old experiment in his discussion when he had new data?

4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?

If any one of these 4 points were different, then we would have more information to help answer the question of why so much emphasis was placed on the low-temperature data. Now we are left to speculation and guessing, and the work itself is shrouded in mystery. This is one reason I prefer using diffusion data from a source like Reiners (2004).
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory. I don't know if I'll have time to read the paper very soon.

Absolutely, it's fair for others to consider the other possibility and I for one will continue to seek the answers no matter where they lead me. I hope you have the same commitment.

As for point (1), there would have been no experiment AT ALL to co-author if Humphreys had identified himself to Farley. This is prejudice IMHO.

(2) I think the standard practice you refer to has to do with (U-Th)/He chronometry, not He diffusion dating. I don't know of anyone but the RATE Group that does He diffusion dating.

(3) I don't think closure temperature is relevant to this discussion. Humphreys discusses this.

(4) Couldn't tell you ... good question though. I will continue to try to get a response from him.

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

I think if you have read the paper you posted the abstract for, it would serve your interest to post a summary of the specific reasons they do not do low temp testing. It does seem that your whole case rests upon this issue.
Thanks Dave for at least acknowledging the fairness of considering the other possibility. Here are some responses to your specific points.

(2) The two are not completely unrelated. They are, in fact, somewhat complementary. Ideal chronometry requires that there be no He loss. Ideal diffusion dating requires that there must be He loss. (If there is no diffusion, there is nothing to date.) Therefore, either method requires a basic assessment of whether there has or has not been a substantial amount of He loss. This is the common ground that needs investigation.

(3) Closure temperature is relevant to the discussion. Even though Humphreys dismisses it in his analysis, he still discusses it, and it that discussion he only mentions the temperature from the earlier experiment. If he is going to mention the topic at all (which he did), I would rather see him use his latest data in the discussion.

Regarding your last statement, Humphreys' case appears to rest entirely upon this issue as well. Furthermore, I would say that at least one of Humphreys' conclusions is now incorrect. He said that "there is no hope for the uniformitarian model". However, I think I have at least raised a legitimate possibility, and Humphreys prematurely dismissed that possibility without giving it due consideration in my opinion.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:31 AM   #960419  /  #687
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Also, Dr. Loechelt ... did you see my "Young Earth Evidences" thread? I made it just for you because you say that YECs don't answer your questions about this topic.
I will look at it when I get time. This thread is consuming all of my free time.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:54 AM   #960455  /  #688
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 23,633
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Also, Dr. Loechelt ... did you see my "Young Earth Evidences" thread? I made it just for you because you say that YECs don't answer your questions about this topic.
I will look at it when I get time. This thread is consuming all of my free time.
May as well not bother, other than the OP in which Mr. Hawkins presents no evidence, just assertions, it consists primarily of the rest of us asking him to present some evidence and why hasn't he done so.
__________________
Invent the Future
RAFH is online now   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 03:55 AM   #960458  /  #689
SomecallmeTim
That's no ordinary rabbit!
 
SomecallmeTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mt. View, CA
Posts: 5,115
SomecallmeTim
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Also, Dr. Loechelt ... did you see my "Young Earth Evidences" thread? I made it just for you because you say that YECs don't answer your questions about this topic.
I will look at it when I get time. This thread is consuming all of my free time.
BTW Dr. Loechelt, the spine-twisting evasive tap-dance that Dave is now doing to avoid facing up to reality is known as the Hawkins Hoedown tm. It is quite well known on the E/C boards like this one where Dave goes to witness and preach at those more knowledgeable than himself, which means virtually everybody.
__________________
"We measure heat in watts, dumbshit." - Schneibster

"You can think of Sanford as your mentally retarded cousin" - Dave Hawkins
SomecallmeTim is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 04:23 AM   #960511  /  #690
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Let me make one more attempt at explaining the helium diffusion experiment and how multiple diffusion domains complicate its interpretation. First, in diffusion modeling, an important physical quantity is the particle flux, which represents the number of particles which flow across a unit area per unit time. For a two-domain system, the flux can be represented as

F = -D1 gradient(N1) - D2 gradient(N2)

For the sake of argument, let the subscript 1 represent the high-temperature domain and the subscript 2 represent the low-temperature domain. The problem with interpreting the results of a diffusion experiment when there is more than one diffusion domain is that the concentrations N1 and N2 cannot be determined from the data. The only constraint is imposed by the total helium yield.

N = N1 + N2

Even though D1 and D2 can be measured, the model cannot be uniquely specified without also knowing the respective concentrations. Dave, this is another way of answering your question. You say that if a vacuum diffusion experiment is valid, then we should trust the diffusion numbers regardless of temperature. I agree with you. However, the issue is not the validity of the diffusion parameters, but the completeness of the experiment. There are more unknowns in the model than the experiment can answer. Therefore, some additional information or theoretical argument must be given to specify the last unknown. This unknown quantity can be represented by the concentration ratio

R = N2 / N1

In my multi-domain diffusion model, I used a ratio of

R = 0.3/99.7

This number was not well constrained by the data. However, I did a couple of sanity checks. First, I ran a sensitivity analysis showing that any ratio between 0.001 and 0.1 gave essentially the same result. This two-order-of-magnitude range showed that at least the model was robust in the limit of a small gas fraction. Second, I checked that ratio against the background helium concentration which would be expected from the whole rock radiogenic element concentration. Third, I checked the literature and found that when a multi-domain diffusion model was used, typically at most a few percent of gas was assigned to the low-retentivity domain.

If it is true that the gas ratio is small, then the inequality

N2 << N1

should hold. This provides the justification for reducing the flux equation to a single domain.

F = -D1 gradient(N1)

Since N2 << N1, the contribution of the second domain to the flux will also be small. This limiting case provides the justification for using only the high-temperature data in the diffusion model. The problem is not that the value for D2 is somehow wrong or bad. It is merely a consequence of the fact that if the second component N2 is small, then it really doesn't matter what the value for D2 is. The flux over time will be dominated by N1.

Now, what did Humphreys do? That is a good question. Here is another point where he failed to adequately document his assumptions in my opinion. I cannot critique his approach without knowing what he did, so I will have to make a few guesses. One possibility is that he assumed

N2 >> N1

Then his analysis would be correct. However, it is hard to justify this case. First, much more gas was released in the high-temperature steps of the experiment than the low-temperature steps. This would imply that

N2 << N1

Furthermore, Humphreys' assigns N1 to an intrinsic diffusion mechanism and N2 to a defect diffusion mechanism. I think this is reasonable. If it is true, then there must be more intrinsic atomic sites than defect sites unless the crystals are badly damaged. However, Humphreys published SEM photographs of the crystals showing that the crystalline form was good. Also, Farley reported that the helium content was not so higher for radiation damage to be a serious concern. All of these factors would again argue that

N2 << N1

There is another possibility. Perhaps Humphreys made the simplification of

N1 = N2 = N

In that case, the flux equation would simplify to

F = -(D1 + D2) gradient(N)

The extra variable is now eliminated and the diffusion model can be expressed unambiguously, but what does this simplification mean? I have no clue. To me it is completely unphysical. It says that a given helium atom can be in both an intrinsic atomic site and a defect site at the same time! How can one helium atom be in two different places at the same time? I cannot find an answer to these questions in any of Humphreys' writings, and until a reasonable answer is given, I have to dismiss the helium diffusion in zircon study, especially in light of the contrary evidence found in the published literature.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 05:47 AM   #960582  /  #691
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49,193
Pingu
Default

Thank you very much, Dr Loechelt.

Dave - do you understand now?

Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 07:32 AM   #960596  /  #692
osmanthus
Bent member
 
osmanthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,983
osmanthus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Also, Dr. Loechelt ... did you see my "Young Earth Evidences" thread? I made it just for you because you say that YECs don't answer your questions about this topic.
You did an excellent job of it too, Davey boy. Rarely have I seen a more convincing demonstration that YEC's do not answer questions.
__________________
I always knew I'd find the source of all evil in a vegan bakery.

Important news: borealis is not a penguin.
osmanthus is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 09:43 AM   #960611  /  #693
damitall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,736
damitall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Thank you very much, Dr Loechelt.

Dave - do you understand now?

Do you ask, Febble, in hope and expectation of a positive reply with some evidence that he actually DOES understand? - I fear you are doomed to disappointment.

Or are you simply being cruelly anti-creationist?

And to Dr. Loechelt-

Please don't be disappointed with apparent lack of effect your explanations are having on Hawkins. He will never admit that Humpy is wrong: the rest of us, however, are very appreciative of the time and trouble you have taken to explain a complex situation.
damitall is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 09:47 AM   #960612  /  #694
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 28,922
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

oh I dunno. If Loechelt keeps pressing and showing dave is wrong, and then starts delving into the fundamental principles of why dave is wrong, then dave may break down like he did with orbital circularization and end off with something like "Oh ok, he has got it wrong, but there has to be a young earth answer for this, there just has to be, you old-earthers can't explain it either... how on earth do you expect a zircon to last for half a billion years? it's just stupid."
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 10:32 AM   #960616  /  #695
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Senior Member
 
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,801
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
...
I for one will continue to seek the answers no matter where they lead me.
...
And you profess to wonder why people think you are dishonest.

How many times have you fled from exclusive engagements, debates, threads, and conversations when your 'points' have been refuted, countered, blown out of the water and otherwise norwegian-blued? I
The answer, of course, is 'all of them'.

You seem to persistently flee the evidence. Could it be the implications?

no hugs for thugs,
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 10:48 AM   #960620  /  #696
Faid
just as bad
 
Faid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,960
Faid
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory.
And why is it that you have no other theory, dave?

Oh that's right- because 'YOU KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS'!
__________________
This would make a fascinating discussion, but I know that people here will simply turn this into an argument.
Faid is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 12:27 PM   #960678  /  #697
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 28,922
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

notice how dave is becoming increasingly withdrawn, and refuses to answer more and more questions, despite those issues being fundamental to his understanding of what he is talking about?
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 12:52 PM   #960706  /  #698
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Senior Member
 
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,801
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
notice how dave is becoming increasingly withdrawn, and refuses to answer more and more questions, despite those issues being fundamental to his understanding of what he is talking about?
Of course. That's how afdave shows his commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads.
'follow', yet another word dave doesn't understand...

no hugs for thugs,
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo is offline   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 12:55 PM   #960708  /  #699
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,760
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a theory for why these folks keep insisting that low temp testing is invalid but won't tell us why ...

THEY KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS!
This of course is pure speculation into the motives of others. Unless you have supporting evidence, then in all fairness, the other pure speculation should be considered.

Humphreys did not tell us why he used low-temperature data when standard practice in the field is to use high-temperature data because HE KNOWS THE IMPLICATIONS!

If you think your suspicion is legitimate, then isn't it fair for others to consider the other possibility? There is actually more supporting evidence to suspect Humphreys.

1. The diffusion experimenters were not allowed to be co-authors on the paper. Therefore, their views and interpretations are not represented.

2. Humphreys never discussed why deviating from standard practice was necessary in this case. An up-front explanation would have been helpful.

3. Key results like the closure temperature were not reported. Why did he use the closure temperature from the old experiment in his discussion when he had new data?

4. Humphreys published the lab report from the first experiment, but not the last experiment. Why?

If any one of these 4 points were different, then we would have more information to help answer the question of why so much emphasis was placed on the low-temperature data. Now we are left to speculation and guessing, and the work itself is shrouded in mystery. This is one reason I prefer using diffusion data from a source like Reiners (2004).
Yes, it's speculation, but I have no other theory. I don't know if I'll have time to read the paper very soon.

Absolutely, it's fair for others to consider the other possibility and I for one will continue to seek the answers no matter where they lead me. I hope you have the same commitment.

As for point (1), there would have been no experiment AT ALL to co-author if Humphreys had identified himself to Farley. This is prejudice IMHO.
Perhaps. The uncontested fact remains that the RATE group hired Farley under false pretenses.

Quote:
(2) I think the standard practice you refer to has to do with (U-Th)/He chronometry, not He diffusion dating. I don't know of anyone but the RATE Group that does He diffusion dating.
The standard practice to which he refers has to do with helium diffusion, no matter what you are doing with helium diffusion.

Last edited by Jet Black; 06-08-2010 at 01:11 PM. Reason: fixed tags
JonF is online now   topbottom
Old 06-08-2010, 01:13 PM   #960730  /  #700
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 28,922
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
The uncontested fact remains that the RATE group hired Farley under false pretenses.
Creationists are known for doing this. Just look at the stupid shit they pull like getting someone to carbon date modern shells or very recently dead organisms with a mostly aquatic carbon source.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
"algebras, a cromulent discussion, could sanshou be the one?, dave the king of science, don't mention sanshou, how do they work?", wishful thinking, would sandshoe tea be fun

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org