Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: One of the best answers ever ...

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    409
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    I forgot to mention that the KBS Tuff dating also belies the common YEC claim that discordant dates are hidden. In this case discrordant dates were published in major scientific journals including Nature.

  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    409
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    This evidence is direct and conclusive. Uniformitivism rules and is falsified as consistent and true by observed incremental annual seasonal lake varves and annual coral growth.
    "Uniformitivism rules and is falsified..."; I think you left out a "YEC" there.

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Missourah, USA
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,274
    Amen (Given)
    3116
    Amen (Received)
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by klaus54 View Post
    Jorge,

    I've tried about a dozen times to get you to regale us with a literal. unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading of the Genesis stories.

    Since you're on web link spree, perhaps this is the thread for you to finally cough it up?

    So, IS there a weblink from CMI or some other reputable YEC defense organization that gives the requested reading of God's Word?

    Without such a reading it seems to me that any YEC "science" paradigm would be spitting in the wind from the get-go since they would have no position to defend. In others word, why bother trying to dispute mainstream geology, etc. without having an alternate unambiguous physical theory to which to compare them?

    So could you provide us with your favorite linky?

    Thanks!

    K54
    I'm waiting for that link or links.

    K54

  4. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    409
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61

    Fisking the Jorge-meister (and Lubenow)

    I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.

    The issue was closed when McDougall (at the time the head of one of the best, if not the best, Ar-Ar lab in the world) published 40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation. Bones of Contention was published in 1992 (apparently there's a 2004 edition). There's no excuse for Lubenow's many errors, documented in many places on the Web.

    Working from Jorge's summary:

    Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
    False. In New Hominid Remains and Early Artefacts from Northern Kenya: Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artefact Site Fitch and Miller reported whole-rock (i.e. no separation) K-Ar dates from 219-223 mya, whole-rock Ar-Ar dates of 2.40 and 3.36 mya, and "feldspar" ("a collection of feldspar phenocrysts (Leakey IB2) separated from the tuff." {In the field - JF}) Ar-Ar dates of 2.38 and 2.36 mya. In their conclusion they wrote:

    Source: Fitch & Miller

    Thus the age indications obtained in this survey can be summarized as follows: Leakey 1B1 pumice: between 2.25 and 4.62 m.y. 2.5 ± 0.5 m.y. is a close minimum age.

    Leakey IB2 crystals: 2.37 ± 0.3 m.y. is a minimum age; 2.64 ± 0.29 m.y. is a reasonably close age; and 2.61 ± less than 0.26 m.y. is a very close age estimate.

    These age indications are all consistent. The best and most acceptable estimate is clearly 2-61 ± less than 0.26 m.y."

    © Copyright Original Source


    2.9 was mentioned nowhere, and 2.61 was the author's preferred number.

    (Interesting aside: the original samples were collected 16 km from skull 1470. In 1996 in Dating of the KBS Tuff and Homo rudolfensis Fitch et al argued that the samples were actually from a different tuff; several of the papers on this issue note the difficulty of correlating tuffs between different locations in this area. We'll never know. As is common the original authors kept some of the samples but in 1981:

    Source: Fitch et al

    ...we (F.J.F. and J.A.M.) sent a crush of all the remaining crystals of the original sanidine-anorthoclase concentrate (stored since 1969 in the Herne Bay office of FM Consultants) to Professor John G. Mitchell at the University of Newcastle for "blind" K–Ar dating. Neither the K nor the Ar isotope analysts knew that this sample was from Koobi Fora (if we could have foreseen the technical advances to come, we might have retained a few crystals for single crystal laser dating at some other laboratory, but it is too late for that now). The K–Ar apparent ages obtained in the Newcastle laboratory from the sample were 2.30+/-0.03 Ma and 2.23+/-0.3 Ma (1 sigma; Table 1).

    © Copyright Original Source


    Wonder if Lubenow has updated BoC to reflect this paper?)

    - Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
    Wrong antecedent for "it's" (and there should be no apostrophe). "It's" in Jorge's post obviously refers to the tuff, when in actuality it refers to the skull 1470 excavated by Leaky (who loved the initial dates).

    - The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
    Not in the initial study or the re-study of the original samples, see above. I haven't seen those numbers anywhere in my reading.

    - In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. ...
    Jorge is very confused. The associated index fossils (mostly pigs) showed that the tuff was expected to be around 1.8-1.9 mya, not the "2-5 mya" Jorge posted (which, amusingly, includes the original range of dates for the tuff.)

    ... Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
    Nobody said there had to be excess argon. They would have been remiss not to investigate the possibility of excess argon. Turns out it wasn't there.

    - How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
    When the many rudolphensis fossils found since then were unambiguously dated to much younger, the would have revisited the original finding. It's possible some of our dates are wrong, it's not possible that all of them are wrong. Scientists are always looking for independent verification of even very old results.

    - Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
    No evidence of subjectivity or circularity has been presented. Two independent dating methods (fossils and radiometric) gave wildly different dates, and real scientists wanted to know 1. why? and 2. what's the correct date? Not at all circular or subjetive.

    - The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
    Infamous? No. But he did say that. SFW? He was in favor of tossing out the theories of modern man but he turned out to be wrong.

    - This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
    ]
    No mention of the pig fossils that were the independent but inconsilient dating method. And more confusion: the fossil was presumed to be the same age as the KBS tuff and the pig fossils, the skull itself was no problem in the dating controversy. (It was a problem at the time in the hominid evolution field.)

    - "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
    I haven't seen any evidence of fudge factors or data discarded without objective and repeatable reasons. Of course Jorge hasn't seen that evidence either.

    - There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.
    Not even wrong. Ridiculous, in fact. I wrote in a message above about what really happened, and have presented more detail here.

    Jorge didn't mention pig fossils. (Reviews of BoC I've seen say Lubenow did). Jorge didn't mention the separation of minerals and the identification of the older and younger components. Jorge didn't mention any of McDougall's 1981 results; it's worth posting some excerpts:

    Source: McDougall

    An unresolved problem concerns understanding the meaning of the ages for the KBS Tuff reported by Fitch, Miller and coworkers11,16,19, who mainly used the 40Ar/39Ar dating technique on anorthoclase separated from pumice clasts. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages ranged from 0.52±0.33 to 2.6±0.3 Myr, and the step heating measurements yielded complex age spectra, interpreted11,17-19 as indicating marked disturbance of the anorthoclase subsequent to its crystallization. They suggested that crystallization occurred ~2.48 Myr ago, with deposition in the KBS Tuff shortly thereafter, followed by thermal overprinting at various times, especially at ~1.8 and 1 Myr ago.

    Here I present results of dating of anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts found within the KBS Tuff, using the 40Ar/39Ar total fusion and age spectrum techniques. These data provide strong evidence that the samples have remained undisturbed since crystallization, which occurred 1.88±0.02 Myr ago. ...

    Locally within the KBS Tuff, pumice clasts are found, regarded as products of the same volcanic eruptions that produced the bulk of the tuff3. Pumice clasts are used for the isotopic dating because they are less likely to be contaminated by old detrital material compared with the enclosing tuff. Here I have used anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts, previously dated by the conventional K-Ar method13. ...

    The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages, measured on separate aliquots of the samples, agree well with one another, yielding a mean age of 1.89 ± 0.01 Myr (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the individual results are concordant with the K-Ar ages measured on the same samples. ...

    Finally I comment on the previously published11,16-19. 40Ar/39Ar results on anorthoclase from pumices in the KBS Tuff. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages measured on 10 different concentrates, as summarized by Fitch et al19, range from 0.53 to 2.48 Myr, typically with quoted errors between 0.1 and 0.5 Myr. The proportion of 40Ar* in these analyses generally is <20% of the total 40Ar and commonly <10% (ref. 18). On the basis of the large scatter in the ages and the small proportion of 40Ar* in the gas extracted from the anorthoclase concentrates, I suggest that the results are analytically less precise than given by these authors.

    © Copyright Original Source


    "Less precise than given by these authors". ROFLMAO. Translated from academia-ese for Jorge, he means "total BS". (40Ar* means radiogenically generated 40Ar, i.e. produced by decay of 40K after formation.)

    I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by JonF View Post
    I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.
    .
    .
    .
    I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.
    Ad hominem to the rescue - up, up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!!

    You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words).

    At least you're "honest" enough to admit that you haven't read Lubenow's book - that puts you one up on Matzke.

    From all that I know I stand by Lubenow's work.
    It might help a bit if you actually read the book.

    Jorge

  6. #16
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,897
    Amen (Given)
    291
    Amen (Received)
    835
    Emphasis mine:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words). :duh
    Lying again, Jorge? You know Matzke didn't produce his critique in less than a day. You've made this claim before, and it's been shot down before. Last time you tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that you meant 24 hours and didn't include time for eating/sleeping etc. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now. So what's you excuse this time?

    Roy
    JohnMartin: "My assertions are fact. They are so fact that even when you deny them, you assert them by implication as shown above.
    Hansgeorg: "3˝ is not a number"
    37818: "What makes you think you are self aware?"

  7. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    409
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    61
    That's why I confined my detailed critique to your claims. Of course you have no substantive response.

  8. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    Ad hominem to the rescue - up, up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!!

    You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words).

    At least you're "honest" enough to admit that you haven't read Lubenow's book - that puts you one up on Matzke.

    From all that I know I stand by Lubenow's work.
    It might help a bit if you actually read the book.

    Jorge
    ***********************************************

    BTW, the following recent headline supports why I don't blindly swallow the claims of "science" as most of you people do. Not that I expect that this will be understood by most of you (in fact, I'd bet the farm that most of you will 'pooh-pooh it'), but here it is nonetheless:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U75oq0BXfEq

    See, one day they're swearing that they've got the "Holy Grail", the next day they're saying, "Oops, maybe not!" Just like the recent "Find of the century!!!" regarding the "proof" of the Big Bang / gravitational waves. Shortly later, "Oops!" And why are they so anxious to promote their beliefs labeled as "science"? Easy - because the main issue is about beliefs, not about science. As I've always said, science is merely a second-tier servant to ideology. In the meantime, people get suckered into believing the Materialistic view of Reality and many lose their soul in the process. That summarizes the entire matter.

    Jorge

  9. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    861
    Amen (Given)
    118
    Amen (Received)
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    ***********************************************

    BTW, the following recent headline supports why I don't blindly swallow the claims of "science" as most of you people do. Not that I expect that this will be understood by most of you (in fact, I'd bet the farm that most of you will 'pooh-pooh it'), but here it is nonetheless:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U75oq0BXfEq

    See, one day they're swearing that they've got the "Holy Grail", the next day they're saying, "Oops, maybe not!" Just like the recent "Find of the century!!!" regarding the "proof" of the Big Bang / gravitational waves. Shortly later, "Oops!" And why are they so anxious to promote their beliefs labeled as "science"? Easy - because the main issue is about beliefs, not about science. As I've always said, science is merely a second-tier servant to ideology. In the meantime, people get suckered into believing the Materialistic view of Reality and many lose their soul in the process. That summarizes the entire matter.

    Jorge
    I thought you understood how science works and humans behave Jorge.

    I believe it was a bunch of those atheistic materialistic scientist who convinced the other atheistic materialistic scientists that they could be wrong. And those atheistic materialistic scientists now agree.

    See how well be behave?

  10. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,166
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    Emphasis mine: Lying again, Jorge? You know Matzke didn't produce his critique in less than a day. You've made this claim before, and it's been shot down before. Last time you tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that you meant 24 hours and didn't include time for eating/sleeping etc. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now. So what's you excuse this time?

    Roy
    False, unsupported accusations of "lying" again.
    I must ask the Mods, why hasn't Roy been banned?

    You are an ignorant, pompous, intellectually-dishonest buffoon, Roy.
    I hope that I'm not mincing any words and that my meaning is crystal clear.

    Read the following and try not to choke on it:

    "Now, Darwin's Doubt runs to 413 pages, excluding endnotes and bibliography. Neither the book's publisher, HarperOne, nor its author sent Matzke a prepublication review copy. Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response -- roughly 30 double-spaced pages -- in little more than a day?

    Perhaps, but a more likely hypothesis is that he wrote the lion's share of the review before the book was released based upon what he presumed it would say. A reviewer who did receive a prepublication copy, University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, writes:

    A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Gödel, Escher, Bach, it simply can't be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night.


    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06...men073791.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07...as_074511.html


    See, unlike people such as yourself, I try to secure objective facts before speaking.

    Now, EITHER REFUTE THE ABOVE OR POST A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

    Jorge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •