Young Earth Radiocarbon.

[xevolutionist]

Xevo:

Well, I'm glad to learn that you don't take the commenting here all that seriously, since your gaze is fixed on an eternal goal...

That's probably just as well, because sincerely believing what you post is not really the standard that most of us apply to factual claims. Rather, one should have some rational basis for one's beliefs before posting them. Furnishing that rational basis therefore requires, in many instances, at least a modicum of research...

For example, you made the claim on another thread that mutations were the least likely occurrence on the planet, rarer than being struck by lightning. Even if your first claim about mutations was parsed as being a claim about "beneficial" mutations--or some other more restricted claim than the very general one you made--a moment's research (or probably just careful recall of information you'd already been supplied) would've shown you that you were wrong. Beneficial mutations, in the germ line, that go on to penetrate a population (I'm adding restrictives to make sure I'm being fair to you), are FAR from the rarest events on the planet.

And, as I showed in my response, being struck by lightning--even being struck by lightning twice in a lifetime and surviving both strikes!--is also FAR from the rarest event on the planet.

Neither of these claims was remotely defensible. Either could have been fact-checked in less than five minutes of googling. And, frankly, no moderately well-read person who had been paying attention to the news during their adolescence and adulthood ought to have felt comfortable making either of these claims without first satisfying themselves that there was a factual basis for them.

And, I note, after the passage of several days, during which you have commented on this thread, you have failed to return to defend your mutation-lightning-planetary improbaility claim... Which, needless to say, I take as a concession that those claims were incorrect.

Perhaps you were indulging in hyperbole, and didn't intend THAT particular claim to be taken literally. In which case, um, we'll start needing you to flag the claims that you honestly intend us to take seriously... Hint: that's what the little smilies are for...!

In my view, however--and with all respect, I suspect it is the view of most others here--making factual claims in an exchange of this kind, claims which you apparently intend your readers to take seriously--without a clue as to their actual truth and without bothering to take at least modest steps to check them before advancing them--amounts to intellectually dishonest behavior.

In short, the standard is not what you sincerely believed, but what you knew or reasonably should have known before making the claim.

If you didn't realize that before, now you do.

Dave Hawkins, if you've never taken the "reasonable person" standard on board before, the same applies to you too.

OK, if I said that mutations are the rarest thing on this planet then I was wrong. Are you happy now? I meant to say that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, as anybody who was following the discussion should have realized. And I think I said one of the rarest, not the rarest, event on the planet.

Just a few questions about your response.

Since there are about 400 known beneficial mutations in humans [correct me if I'm wrong] and there are about 6.5 billion people on the planet, what, for example, is more rare than that?

[And keep in mind that these beneficial mutations are assertions by the evolutionary community, not always agreed on by medical doctors]

I know that more than one person carries those beneficial mutations, but the ones I read about occur in very small groups of people, with the exception possibly of the anemia causing mutation that protects some of it's carriers from malaria. However, since that's still classified as a disease by the medical community, [you know, like medical doctors with degrees] I don't think it's a valid example of a beneficial mutation.

But the thing is, it doesn't matter how many people carry the same mutation, it's still just one mutation. So what on earth is rarer than 400 out of 6.5 billion?

Exactly how many people out of that 6 billion have been struck by lightning? I'll grant you that I had no idea when I made that post, but I still think it's an extremely rare occurrence. You provided only anecdotal evidence if I remember correctly, and didn't give any exact figures. I found this in a quick search, and to me, 1 in 700,000 is rare. I guess we have different definitions of rare.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...wlightning.htm

During every minute of every day, roughly 1,800 thunderstorms are creating lightning somewhere on Earth. Though the chances of being struck by lightning are estimated at 1 in 700,000, these huge electrical sparks are one of the leading causes of weather-related deaths in the USA each year with an average of 73 people killed; about 300 people usually are injured by lightning.

One last question; When were you appointed arbiter of what a reasonable person should know about various subjects, and what committee appointed you?

[xevolutionist]

Xevo:

Xevo:

(My bold.)

Mike PSS:

(My bolding.)

Now I don't want to leap to any hasty conclusions here, but I'd sure hate to have MY reputation for honesty hanging from the two little words "or so",,,

Here you go again, questioning my honesty, when I clearly stated I didn't read the whole paper. Maybe it does say in there somewhere that some of the samples were not labeled as to the known age, but apparently most of them were.

That doesn't meet any reasonable person's expectations of blind testing by an independent agency.

When the group of people supervising the test has a vested interest in the results turning out a certain way to preserve their reputation, then you can bet they will come out that way.

If the "blind" samples were duplicates of those of known age materials, and the daters were informed of that, how could the not have some idea of the expected age?

[Tiggy]

One last question; When were you appointed arbiter of what a reasonable person should know about various subjects, and what committee appointed you?

Since this is a public forum, we all get to be arbiters when a woefully ignorant stumblebum like you comes by and starts spouting off on topics he knows virtually nothing about. The rest of us who have studied the topics and do know what we're talking about have every right to call you on your ignorant bluster.

You'll notice it's not just "he said she said" either. We back up our claims with empirical data, and papers/articles from the primary scientific literature. All you've got is the typical YEC arsenal of C&Ped AIG stupidity, quote-mined quotes, and LOTS of personal incredulity driven hot air.

Any part of that you don't understand?

- T

[Steviepinhead]

Xevo:

OK, if I said that mutations are the rarest thing on this planet then I was wrong.

Yes, you were.

Are you happy now?

My happiness depends not at all on anything that transpires here between the two of us. But, yes, I'm almost always happy, thanks!

I meant to say that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, as anybody who was following the discussion should have realized.

I never claimed to be "following the discussion." You made a particular unrestricted claim with which I took issue and about which you have now conceded I was correct. I am more than happy to allow those who have been engaged in the ongoing overall discussion with you to respond to your many other claims.

And I think I said one of the rarest, not the rarest, event on the planet.

Indeed, that is what you originally said:

And we know this is one of the rarest occurrences on earth. Comparable to being struck by lightning.

And my point--the one which you appeared to have conceded further above, assuming that you are not now attempting to back off that--is that "being struck by lightning" is neither "the" or "one of the" rarest occurrences on the planet. One would hope it would be obvious that, in order to avoid mere hyperbole, to be "the" rarest occurrence on the planet, something would have to have happened only once in the entire 4.5 billion year history of Earth. I would then suggest that, to any reasonable arbiter of our exchange, in order to be "one of the" rarest occurrences on the planet, an event should have only happened a very few times over the planet's history.

Being struck by lightning clearly happens many more times a year than once, and many more times a year than a small handful of times. Thus, being struck by lightning can hardly be "one of the rarest occurrences on the planet."

Many things happen every year that are rarer than humans being struck by lightning. The odds of being struck by lightning are greater than winning the powerball lottery, are greater than being struck by a meteorite, are perhaps--in many years--greater than dying in a commercial airliner accident...

Just a few questions about your response.

I'll be here all week...

Since there are about 400 known beneficial mutations in humans [correct me if I'm wrong]

I have no idea if you are right or wrong--though past history with you is hardly encouraging. If this is a claim you have previously made and supported on this or some other thread, then the polite--and credibility-enhancing--thing for you to do (since WE have not previously been engaged concerning this claim) would be to link, either to your earlier statement or to your originally-cited support for the claim.

I will note that the "400" claim strikes me as suspicious. You don't define what you consider to be a "beneficial" mutation, you don't give your source, you don't give a rate (per year? per generation? what?), you don't furnish a population or a degree of penetration (each individual? every person on the planet? in the human genome as currently transcribed from a very few individuals, what?), and you haven't furnished a supporting link to a paper or source.

and there are about 6.5 billion people on the planet,

Here, it would seem, you are claiming that, if we examined the genomes of all 6.5 billion humans currently alive, we would find "only" 400 "beneficial" mutations. This again strikes me as odd, given that one or two germ-line mutations per individual is the number that has previously been bandied about. That sounds a whole lot closer to 6.5 billion mutations than to 400, so apparently the distinction is in what we would define as "beneficial."

One might, for example, suggest, in line with the theory of "neutral" mutations, that any mutation that is not immediately detrimental is, or potentially could be, "beneficial."

Or one might suggest that--again with the arguable exception of demonstrated genetic "defects"--every genetic locus whereby humans have evolved from early replicators represents a beneficial mutation.

One needs to define one's terms in these discussions, to give "operational definitions" for critical terms.

That, I would suggest, would spare you much wasted effort and frustrating "ships passing in the night" exchanges. But, again, that requires that you invest a certain amount of thought and research BEFORE advancing claims that turn out not to be tenable.

what, for example, is more rare than that?

Once again into the breach, dear friends! A virtual infinity of things, depending on what you mean by "more rare" this time around. Apparently you have learned the wrong lesson from our encounter thus far. Rather than "nebulating" your claims by eliminating all definition and quantification--the usual resort, we have found, of creationist claimants (one that doesn't serve to advance arguments, but which may give the illusion of not having "lost" them)--I would advise you to seriously consider (as above) giving your claims some meaningful content via thoughtful definition and quantification.

In short, you appear only to have retreated from "one of the rarest events on the planet," which we now all know is NOT "comparable to being struck by lightning," to "what is more rare than that?" To which the only substantive response can be, "How 'rare' are we talking?" Since you don't say, obviously I can't make a meaningful response.

But even if what you meant to say was that, of all the 6.5 billion people presently alive on the planet, only 400 of them bear (whatever Xevo means by) a "beneficial" mutation, then I would want to see your source, I would want to hear your definition of "beneficial," and I would contend that something that happens 400 times in every 6.5 billion births certainly isn't "one of the rarest occurrences on the planet," whatever else it might be...

[And keep in mind that these beneficial mutations are assertions by the evolutionary community, not always agreed on by medical doctors.

More nebulosity. Are "we" now saying that "the evolutionary community" has only identified 400 "beneficial" mutations--variations from the 'norm'?--at all the loci in all the genomes of all the humans on earth? This sounds more like a result of limited study than anything else, a pure "gaps" argument. What difference you see in how the "evolutionary community" defines beneficial and how "medical doctors" (good, at least we're not talking chiropractors or naturopaths) might do so, we--I'm tempted to say "of couse"--don't yet know, since you haven't bothered to define your terms.

I know that more than one person carries those beneficial mutations, ...

Maybe you do. Maybe you don't. But we certainly don't know the degree of penetration for any of this claimed 400, since--of course!--you haven't bothered to identify any of them or link to a source for your info.

but the ones I read about

--not a very encouraging phrase, given the amount that you've already demonstrated you don't know about this whole area--

occur in very small groups of people, with the exception possibly of the anemia causing mutation that protects some of it's carriers from malaria.

Well, right off the bat, the lactose mutation(s) that allows adults of large-mammal rearing populaces to gain nourishment from their herds strikes me as much more widespread, leading me to immediately distrust your unsupported generalization.

However, since that's still classified as a disease by the medical community, [you know, like medical doctors with degrees] I don't think it's a valid example of a beneficial mutation.

(My emphasis.)
Sigh. "There you go again!" to quote a dead president.
What's "still classified as a disease"? Having the sickle-cell mutation at one allele? Having it at both alleles (which, strikes me as much the better fit to your description of "having the anemia causing mutation")? Having malaria?

This isn't just nebulous argumentation, but simple poor writing. Don't let your pronouns grow up to be ambiguous... They'd be better off being doctors or lawyers or such.

Clearly the single-allele mutation confers an overall benefit in malaria-plagued regions of the world. Otherwise, uh, it wouldn't have achieved penetration...

But the thing is, it doesn't matter how many people carry the same mutation, it's still just one mutation.

Well, you seem to be sneaking up on committing yourself to a definition of "mutation." Or penetration. Or something...

I might suggest that, if enough people carry the same sequence at the same locus, it's pretty hard to keep calling that sequence a "mutation." Which gets us back to penetration, the degree of which, therefore, certainly does matter. Since it gets us back to commonly-accepted definitions of "beneficial."

So what on earth is rarer than 400 out of 6.5 billion?

Assuming this ratio actually has some meaningful content--which is far from clear, see above--then LOTS of things! Also see above. And bolide strikes, and nuclear weapons utilized in warfare, and major biosphere-threatening die-offs. And powerball wins.

And, at this rate, a definition or a link from you.

Exactly how many people out of that 6 billion have been struck by lightning? I'll grant you that I had no idea when I made that post, ...

My point exactly, finally wiggling its way into your comprehension...

but I still think it's an extremely rare occurrence.

By now, you will, I trust, fully realize that I don't really give a flying fig for your undefined and unquantified opinions.

You provided only anecdotal evidence if I remember correctly, ...

You don't. What I "provided" was a way for you to track my research into the rate of people being struck TWICE by lightning:

I googled "struck lightning twice," and the first hit told me that the odds of being struck by lightning twice are 1 in 9 million.

Since this gave you all the information you needed to duplicate my search, then--if you had some criticism of the accuracy of my "first hit" from that search--I assume you would have informed us of the specifics long since. You haven't.

... and didn't give any exact figures.

Er, no. See above. One in nine million is pretty mathematically exact, I think reasonable persons will agree.

I found this in a quick search

--of the kind, one hopes you are now beginning to understand, that you should have made in the first place.

and to me, 1 in 700,000 is rare.

Yes, now, finally, we know that you think that 1:700,000 is rare. Although you also said, up above, that you think it is "extremely" rare. And we also know that you still think, despite having been given many examples to the contrary, that "what is more rare than" 400:6.5 billion?

I guess we have different definitions of rare.

Well, you have succesfully tracked one of my original points, so that represents some hard-won progress. Although, more accurately, I might say that I have advanced a definition of "one of the rarest occurrences on the planet." And that your definition of what is rare, extremely rare, or "more rare than that" remains nebulous.

Others have, or will (I am confident), respond to your "arbiter of reasonableness" and "blind tests" points.

To summarize, in a discussion of this kind, it is very helpful to all concerned if you support your claims with links, define important terms, restrict important quantities, and in general avoid playing fast and loose with the data.

[Mike PSS]

Here you go again, questioning my honesty, when I clearly stated I didn't read the whole paper. Maybe it does say in there somewhere that some of the samples were not labeled as to the known age, but apparently most of them were.

BUT, the quote I countered your claim with was well within the first 40 pages (or so) that you said you reviewed.

PLUS, why would I lie to you about the blind test in the first place. Did you immediately assume that what I said was an outright lie? That this test wasn't blind? Was that your premise for reviewing the first 40 pages (or so)?

Yet you still missed the clear and concise writing, under the appropriate section titled "Final Sample List", that indicated the methods of testing used.

Do you read scientific papers much?

That doesn't meet any reasonable person's expectations of blind testing by an independent agency.

You sir are an idiot. Or willfully ignorant. Or just pulling our chain. It can be only these three, which one is it.

Xevo, are you:
1. An idiot?
2. Willfully ignorant?
3. Yanking our chain?

When the group of people supervising the test has a vested interest in the results turning out a certain way to preserve their reputation, then you can bet they will come out that way.

Please refer provides this board with a clear and concise reasoned description of HOW these testers would skew the results.

Please then reference the published paper to support your claim.

OR STFU and quit slanderring these scientists work.

If the "blind" samples were duplicates of those of known age materials, and the daters were informed of that, how could the not have some idea of the expected age?

Read the paper. They DIDN'T KNOW WHICH BLIND SAMPLES WERE WHICH.

Please examine the paper again. OR choose the above question, 1 2 or 3 please.

Your sounding like AFDave more and more with this world wide conspiracy bull[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color].

[oxmixmudd]

BUT, the quote I countered your claim with was well within the first 40 pages (or so) that you said you reviewed.

PLUS, why would I lie to you about the blind test in the first place. Did you immediately assume that what I said was an outright lie? That this test wasn't blind? Was that your premise for reviewing the first 40 pages (or so)?

Yet you still missed the clear and concise writing, under the appropriate section titled "Final Sample List", that indicated the methods of testing used.

Do you read scientific papers much?

You sir are an idiot. Or willfully ignorant. Or just pulling our chain. It can be only these three, which one is it.

Xevo, are you:
1. An idiot?
2. Willfully ignorant?
3. Yanking our chain?

Please refer provides this board with a clear and concise reasoned description of HOW these testers would skew the results.

Please then reference the published paper to support your claim.

OR STFU and quit slanderring these scientists work.

Read the paper. They DIDN'T KNOW WHICH BLIND SAMPLES WERE WHICH.

Please examine the paper again. OR choose the above question, 1 2 or 3 please.

Your sounding like AFDave more and more with this world wide conspiracy bull[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color].

What we are seeing here is Xevo's paranoia as regards science and scientists. This is a common talking point in the YEC world view: In YEC land, one of the major reasons the evidence is so strongly counter to their Biblical world view is that willingly or not the world system is in collusion to 'make' the data show something contrary to what they believe. Thus, if in any experiment there is the slightest possibility of deception or manipulation of the results, it is suspect. In this case, Xevo probably thinks the various lab personel figured out what sample was what and made sure the dates came out 'right'.

The fact that would invalidate the study and likely shut the lab down if discovered is not sufficient motivation in his mind to keep in from happening. And the fact the results are consistent (and therefore contrary to his Biblical interpretation) is de facto proof that there was collusion.

Even more to the point, If this evidence is going to be powerful enough to convince him that his interpretation is wrong, there can be not even even be a hint of a possibility of manipulation. Otherwise, rather than accept the results, he will assume the manipulation of the data took place.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of much of the YEC rejection of mainstream science results.


Jim

[Tiggy]

What we are seeing here is Xevo's paranoia as regards science and scientists. This is a common talking point in the YEC world view: In YEC land, one of the major reasons the evidence is so strongly counter to their Biblical world view is that willingly or not the world system is in collusion to 'make' the data show something contrary to what they believe. Thus, if in any experiment there is the slightest possibility of deception or manipulation of the results, it is suspect. In this case, Xevo probably thinks the various lab personel figured out what sample was what and made sure the dates came out 'right'.

The fact that would invalidate the study and likely shut the lab down if discovered is not sufficient motivation in his mind to keep in from happening. And the fact the results are consistent (and therefore contrary to his Biblical interpretation) is de facto proof that there was collusion.

Even more to the point, If this evidence is going to be powerful enough to convince him that his interpretation is wrong, there can be not even even be a hint of a possibility of manipulation. Otherwise, rather than accept the results, he will assume the manipulation of the data took place.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of much of the YEC rejection of mainstream science results.


Jim

Yep. Xevo is just the latest victim of Morton's Demon, albeit a particularly slimy and disingenuous one.

Sad.

- T

[Cyrus Johnson]

What we are seeing here is Xevo's paranoia as regards science and scientists. This is a common talking point in the YEC world view: In YEC land, one of the major reasons the evidence is so strongly counter to their Biblical world view is that willingly or not the world system is in collusion to 'make' the data show something contrary to what they believe. Thus, if in any experiment there is the slightest possibility of deception or manipulation of the results, it is suspect. In this case, Xevo probably thinks the various lab personel figured out what sample was what and made sure the dates came out 'right'.

The fact that would invalidate the study and likely shut the lab down if discovered is not sufficient motivation in his mind to keep in from happening. And the fact the results are consistent (and therefore contrary to his Biblical interpretation) is de facto proof that there was collusion.

Even more to the point, If this evidence is going to be powerful enough to convince him that his interpretation is wrong, there can be not even even be a hint of a possibility of manipulation. Otherwise, rather than accept the results, he will assume the manipulation of the data took place.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of much of the YEC rejection of mainstream science results.


Jim

And let me guess. Data that goes the other way, that (at least appears to) support their position, they accept without question.

[rogue06]

What we are seeing here is Xevo's paranoia as regards science and scientists. This is a common talking point in the YEC world view: In YEC land, one of the major reasons the evidence is so strongly counter to their Biblical world view is that willingly or not the world system is in collusion to 'make' the data show something contrary to what they believe. Thus, if in any experiment there is the slightest possibility of deception or manipulation of the results, it is suspect. In this case, Xevo probably thinks the various lab personel figured out what sample was what and made sure the dates came out 'right'.

The fact that would invalidate the study and likely shut the lab down if discovered is not sufficient motivation in his mind to keep in from happening. And the fact the results are consistent (and therefore contrary to his Biblical interpretation) is de facto proof that there was collusion.

Even more to the point, If this evidence is going to be powerful enough to convince him that his interpretation is wrong, there can be not even even be a hint of a possibility of manipulation. Otherwise, rather than accept the results, he will assume the manipulation of the data took place.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of much of the YEC rejection of mainstream science results.


Jim

And yet X has seen what happens to those who commit fraud in science in his own example of the disgraced Dr. Protsch. While it may have taken awhile for the facts to catch up with him, Protsch's work now is rightfully disregarded and his opinions will never be taken seriously again. That is what happens.

[xevolutionist]

BUT, the quote I countered your claim with was well within the first 40 pages (or so) that you said you reviewed.

PLUS, why would I lie to you about the blind test in the first place. Did you immediately assume that what I said was an outright lie? That this test wasn't blind? Was that your premise for reviewing the first 40 pages (or so)? Yet you still missed the clear and concise writing, under the appropriate section titled "Final Sample List", that indicated the methods of testing used.

Do you read scientific papers much?

You sir are an idiot. Or willfully ignorant. Or just pulling our chain. It can be only these three, which one is it.

Xevo, are you:
1. An idiot?
2. Willfully ignorant?
3. Yanking our chain?

Please refer provides this board with a clear and concise reasoned description of HOW these testers would skew the results.

Please then reference the published paper to support your claim.

OR STFU and quit slanderring these scientists work.

Read the paper. They DIDN'T KNOW WHICH BLIND SAMPLES WERE WHICH.

Please examine the paper again. OR choose the above question, 1 2 or 3 please.

Your sounding like AFDave more and more with this world wide conspiracy bull[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color].

PLUS, why would I lie to you about the blind test in the first place. Did you immediately assume that what I said was an outright lie? That this test wasn't blind? Was that your premise for reviewing the first 40 pages (or so)?

I already have discussed this on other forums and I already knew there is no blind testing by any independent body done to verify whether labs are capable of accurately dating materials of unknown age.

Also, I relied on the guest editor of the report to know whether or not the testing was actually "blind." He apparently also disagrees with you.

I based my comments on the whole substance of what I read. For instance, on page nine the guest editor addresses criticisms of the inter comparison project including the fact that the samples are not anonymous, but the laboratories are. He does not dispute this criticism, leading me to believe that the samples are indeed not anonymous, which would be a requirement for truly blind testing..

Elsewhere I noted that only some duplicate samples were not identified as to approximate age on submission. All the other samples were, as far as I can tell. And the purpose of this whole project is not to see if they can date them accurately [because they already know they can't] , but to compare results from participating labs. The labs were told samples A and B were at the upper limit of detection. This was specifically mentioned on page 32.

And on page 54 it is clearly stated that 10% of the resultant dates were classified as outliers, meaning they were obviously wrong. That is one out of every 10, and most of these they already know how old they were supposed to be. Only about 10% of the samples were unidentified and...... hey, what a coincidence!

Yep, this is real science alright!!! I can just hear the scientists at NASA now. " Well Bill, it looks like we only have a 10 % chance of completely losing this shuttle due to our imperfect knowledge of computing trajectories, so it's a go for launch! Give the good news to the astronauts, and tell them to suit up!"

This is fun. I love discussing the "science" of radiometric dating.

[xevolutionist]

What we are seeing here is Xevo's paranoia as regards science and scientists. This is a common talking point in the YEC world view: In YEC land, one of the major reasons the evidence is so strongly counter to their Biblical world view is that willingly or not the world system is in collusion to 'make' the data show something contrary to what they believe. Thus, if in any experiment there is the slightest possibility of deception or manipulation of the results, it is suspect. In this case, Xevo probably thinks the various lab personel figured out what sample was what and made sure the dates came out 'right'.

The fact that would invalidate the study and likely shut the lab down if discovered is not sufficient motivation in his mind to keep in from happening. And the fact the results are consistent (and therefore contrary to his Biblical interpretation) is de facto proof that there was collusion.

Even more to the point, If this evidence is going to be powerful enough to convince him that his interpretation is wrong, there can be not even even be a hint of a possibility of manipulation. Otherwise, rather than accept the results, he will assume the manipulation of the data took place.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of much of the YEC rejection of mainstream science results.


Jim

I got a good laugh out this, your latest attack on me personally, and not my argument.

See my last post as to why this intercomparison cannot be considered "Blind" testing. Those are just the plain facts, whether you want to admit it or not. Anyone can read what I read for themselves.

I see they are shutting labs down all the time. Why it only took thirty years for the self verifying community of radiometric dating labs to catch on to and shut down Protsch. Good job.

[Tiggy]

This is fun. I love discussing the "science" of radiometric dating.

Great! Then you'll have no problems explaining the close correlation between the multiple independent C14calibration curves that have been discussed at TWeb many times.

C14 calibration curve questions for YECs

To date not a single YEC has offered an explanation for the cal data, including John Baumgardener, one of the YEC RATE biggies. He fled TWeb too rather than face the scientific data.

Xevo, I'm sure you will address these questions with the same competence and integrity you've shown on all the other science topics you've tackled.

- T

[KBertsche]

I already have discussed this on other forums and I already knew there is no blind testing by any independent body done to verify whether labs are capable of accurately dating materials of unknown age.

Also, I relied on the guest editor of the report to know whether or not the testing was actually "blind." He apparently also disagrees with you.

I based my comments on the whole substance of what I read. For instance, on page nine the guest editor addresses criticisms of the inter comparison project including the fact that the samples are not anonymous, but the laboratories are. He does not dispute this criticism, leading me to believe that the samples are indeed not anonymous, which would be a requirement for truly blind testing..

Elsewhere I noted that only some duplicate samples were not identified as to approximate age on submission. All the other samples were, as far as I can tell. And the purpose of this whole project is not to see if they can date them accurately [because they already know they can't] , but to compare results from participating labs. The labs were told samples A and B were at the upper limit of detection. This was specifically mentioned on page 32.

Why do you claim that these samples A and B were not blind? The labs were only told "that these samples should be considered as close to, or beyond, the limit of 14C detection." (Radiocarbon, vol. 45, p. 150) They did not know the actual date ahead of time.

And on page 54 it is clearly stated that 10% of the resultant dates were classified as outliers, meaning they were obviously wrong. That is one out of every 10, and most of these they already know how old they were supposed to be. Only about 10% of the samples were unidentified and...... hey, what a coincidence!

You comment makes no sense. Yes, roughly 10% of the A and B dates were outliers. 100% of the labs knew that these were old Kauri wood, but 0% of the labs knew ahead of time how old the wood actually was. So what is your point??

[oxmixmudd]

I got a good laugh out this, your latest attack on me personally, and not my argument.

See my last post as to why this intercomparison cannot be considered "Blind" testing. Those are just the plain facts, whether you want to admit it or not. Anyone can read what I read for themselves.

I see they are shutting labs down all the time. Why it only took thirty years for the self verifying community of radiometric dating labs to catch on to and shut down Protsch. Good job.

It was simply a comment on how you present yourself. I have yet to get you to seriously engage in any subtstantial way on any actual data. You make assertions, then walk away. Kind of hard to do anything BUT make comments about you personally under those circumstances.

As for this latest round: You have yet to make a coherant case as to why this would not be considered blind testing. Why does knowing the basic information required to properly process and prepare the sample negate the term 'blind'? They did not know what date to expect, and they reported the dates they found.


Jim

[Augustine2004]

X, are you extremely wealthy? If so, why don't you offer to finance the labs' costs in doing tests to exacting standards? They would be told nothing at all about the samples' expected ages, but they can then go ahead and assume extreme ages before exacting cleaning of equipment and handling of samples.