Dating Fraud

[WILLOWTREE]

KBS TUFF

The KBS Tuff dating fiasco (1976 "Nature" magazine) used Isochron methods, the very methods that are claimed to ensure errors cannot occurr because of anomalous loss or gain of argon.


The Fitch team and the Berkeley team produced a descrepancy of a half million to one million years. Of course many years later in 1981 the Australian National University bailed out both teams by producing a split the difference dating.

The real thriller of interest is in the rejected dates of 0.5 million years and
17.5 million years "in favor of 2.6 million" originally.

By what scientific criteria was the rejected - rejected and the accepted - accepted ?

Answer: What is already published = circular database of self-fulfilling predictions.

Evos: Where is your external corroborating evidence confirming published dates ?

WT

[technomage]

Willowtree,

Why do you bother? If someone comes up with evidence--whether valid or not--you will simply state that it's not valid, sight unseen. You don't care about evidence, learning, or facts, all you give evidence of caring about is your beliefs.

OK, you believe in a young earth: great. I respect your beliefs, and though I disagree with them, I will not try to dissuade you from them, because it is obvious that you draw a degree of emotional comfort from them. But your method of constructing an "argument," and your habit of making rebuttals that have far more flame than substance, is counterproductive. All you have succeeded in doing is to galvanize those who disagree with you, and embarras those who agree.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

Willowtree,

Why do you bother? If someone comes up with evidence--whether valid or not--you will simply state that it's not valid, sight unseen. You don't care about evidence, learning, or facts, all you give evidence of caring about is your beliefs.

OK, you believe in a young earth: great. I respect your beliefs, and though I disagree with them, I will not try to dissuade you from them, because it is obvious that you draw a degree of emotional comfort from them. But your method of constructing an "argument," and your habit of making rebuttals that have far more flame than substance, is counterproductive. All you have succeeded in doing is to galvanize those who disagree with you, and embarras those who agree.

Justin

Atheist rant.

Also a recognition of the indictment of the OP and the inability to refute.

The only persons who deny evidence is atheo-evos.

I am not a YEC.

How does an old Earth harm Genesis ?

WT

[Minnesota]

Why do you bother? If someone comes up with evidence--whether valid or not--you will simply state that it's not valid, sight unseen. You don't care about evidence, learning, or facts, all you give evidence of caring about is your beliefs.

OK, you believe in a young earth: great. I respect your beliefs, and though I disagree with them, I will not try to dissuade you from them, because it is obvious that you draw a degree of emotional comfort from them. But your method of constructing an "argument," and your habit of making rebuttals that have far more flame than substance, is counterproductive. All you have succeeded in doing is to galvanize those who disagree with you, and embarras those who agree.

OUCH!

[WILLOWTREE]

OUCH!

Minnie:

That wasn't my quote.

I guess it doesn't matter in lieu of your new topic.

WT

[technomage]

I am not a YEC.

And I am not an atheist. If you don't care enough to be honest, at least be accurate.

[geochron]

KBS TUFF

The KBS Tuff dating fiasco (1976 "Nature" magazine) used Isochron methods, the very methods that are claimed to ensure errors cannot occurr because of anomalous loss or gain of argon.

The Fitch team and the Berkeley team produced a descrepancy of a half million to one million years. Of course many years later in 1981 the Australian National University bailed out both teams by producing a split the difference dating.

The real thriller of interest is in the rejected dates of 0.5 million years and
17.5 million years "in favor of 2.6 million" originally.

By what scientific criteria was the rejected - rejected and the accepted - accepted ?

Have you read the original papers? - the answer is presumably there. I guess you have some homework to do!

Failing that, I've not worked on that sample, but it is pushing the K-Ar and Ar-Ar techniques to date things in the few million year timescales. I doubt they would have tried if it hadn't been relevant to hominid evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a tad unreliable.

Answer: What is already published = circular database of self-fulfilling predictions.

Evos: Where is your external corroborating evidence confirming published dates ?

WT

Which published dates? Obviously the answer differs from case to case. If you're wanting to go from this to "the Earth is 6000 years old" you have a long way to go.

(Sorry, this was written before I saw the intervening posts above. If you're not a young Earth type it's not clear to me what your point is.

[JonF]

Evos: Where is your external corroborating evidence confirming published dates ?

Pigs. From http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny...995/0425.html:

Re: Dating of 1470

The dating of KNM-ER 1470 was caught up in the dating problems of the KBS Tuff (a layer of volcanic residue, this one named after Kay Behrensmeyer) and the Tulu Bor Tuff beneath it. The first dating attempts of the KBS Tuff by means of a potassium-argon resulted in a scatter of dates; obviously not a good sign. Later attempts were made with 40Ar/39Ar step heating and these gave the quite early dates which seemed good to Leakey (a family thing there; Leakey is pretty good on the subject with the exception of expecting, like his folks, to find a very early *Homo*). They did seem out of step to most others, however, and, more critically, they didn't match up with the faunal evidence.


The suid (pig) fossils around Africa appear with such frequency that they're are a good test of dating accuracy. If your dates don't match up with the pigs you would expect to see at that date, it's generally considered you should double-check your dates. The pigs found in the Tulu Bor Tuff (which was tentatively dated at about 3.18 mya) were of the sort seen at Omo in Shungura Member G and Bed I, and this last was firmly dated at 1.8-1.7 mya (Omo is well-dated).

© source where applicable

[JonF]

Failing that, I've not worked on that sample, but it is pushing the K-Ar and Ar-Ar techniques to date things in the few million year timescales. I doubt they would have tried if it hadn't been relevant to hominid evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a tad unreliable.

Pretty much the same as what Andrew MacRae wrote at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#specific:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?

For example, in the "Dating Game" appendix of his "Bones of Contention" book (1992), Marvin Lubenow provided an example of what happens when a geologically complicated sample is dated -- it can be very difficult to analyze. He discussed the "KBS tuff" near Lake Turkana in Africa, which is a redeposited volcanic ash. It contains a mixture of minerals from a volcanic eruption and detrital mineral grains eroded from other, older rocks. It is also a comparatively "young" sample, approaching the practical limit of the radiometric methods employed (conventional K/Ar dating), particularly at the time of the initial dating attempts in 1969. If the age of this unit were not so crucial to important associated hominid fossils, it probably would not have been dated at all because of the potential problems. After some initial and prolonged troubles over many years, the bed was eventually dated successfully by careful sample preparation that eliminated the detrital minerals. Lubenow's work is fairly unique in characterising the normal scientific process of refining a difficult date as an arbitrary and inappropriate "game", and documenting the history of the process in some detail, as if such problems were typical.

© source where applicable

[Sacrificial Ram]

And I am not an atheist. If you don't care enough to be honest, at least be accurate.

Justin,

From what I see, if you don't believe in religion exactly like WT does, he considers you an atheist.

[WILLOWTREE]

I am fighting for an asterisk next to the claim that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The asterisk is due because there is no external confirmation of ANY published dates which support 4.6 billion age of Earth.

We have rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks = circular mess.

Discard dates are only as such BECAUSE they contradict published dates.

Discard dates prove dating unreliability.

What scientific criteria determines the starting ages ?

I contend the guesses of biased evos who need billions of years are the starting benchmark dating. From this start ALL published dates were built upon.

Isochron dating method was billed as the very method that was to ensure what happened at the KBS Tuff would not happen.

KBS Tuff proves dating method unreliability.

The lack of any external and pristine confirmation of published dates demands the database is pure fraud paraded under the disguise that it was scientifically produced.

WT

[Minnesota]

WILLOWTREE,





Mea culpa I owe you one.

[aniso]

I am fighting for an asterisk next to the claim that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The asterisk is due because there is no external confirmation of ANY published dates which support 4.6 billion age of Earth.

Sure there is. There are multiple supporting analyses.

We have rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks = circular mess.

Umm, no. No fossils are used to date the age of the earth.

Discard dates are only as such BECAUSE they contradict published dates.

If they are discarded, how do you know about them?

Discard dates prove dating unreliability.

So when you made a mistake on your math test, did you find math unreliable? Don't you see how silly your logic is?

What scientific criteria determines the starting ages ?

THere is no such thing as a "starting age'. Please elaborate.

I contend the guesses of biased evos who need billions of years are the starting benchmark dating. From this start ALL published dates were built upon.

Actually not. Your history is wrong. Are you saying that fossils gave us a 4.6 Ga earth? Or the first radiometric dates gave us a 4.6 Ga earth? Neither is correct.

Isochron dating method was billed as the very method that was to ensure what happened at the KBS Tuff would not happen.

Nonsense. There will always be problematic analyses. As I understand it the samples were adulterated by older rock fragments.

KBS Tuff proves dating method unreliability.

An assertion. Please support your statement. The scientific literature does not say this.

The lack of any external and pristine confirmation of published dates demands the database is pure fraud paraded under the disguise that it was scientifically produced.

There is ample confirmation. What exactly do you want?

[jar2]

Actually, WILLOWTREE, you know and have known for some time that you're simply blowing smoke. As I pointed out to you several months ago, there is an article by Ian McDougall at www.in-cites.com/scientists/DrIanMcDougall.html where he explains exactly step by step what happened during the investigation of the KBS Tuffs.

And by the way, as you have been told many, many times, the KBS Tuffs are not one layer but rather a whole series of layers extending over many, many millions of years.

So far you have NEVER been able to provide any evidence of these missing or discarded dates. The very fact that the original dates were published and vetted, and that later newer discoveries provided additional information shows you are, as usual, wrong.

Man, you can't ever get anything right, can you?

[Kulindrichnus]

We have rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks = circular mess.

Fossils are used to correlate rocks, not date them. Radiometric dating is used to date rocks.

K