Originally posted by afdave

Do you know how many times I've been told by people who only want to hear evidence for their Old Earth Views say that I have now sunk to a new level? I guess you could say that, for them, I'm a pioneer! :-)

I am curious to know if Dr. Bertsch thinks it constitutes a misquote to link to his post as follows ...

Dr Kirk Bertsche Confirms That C14 Testing is Not Blind

Would you prefer the insertion of the word "normally" before "not"? That's not much different, but if it would pacify the wolves, I'll be happy to oblige.

AFdave, are you going to actually honor your word and come back to the Burrows thread or are you going to let your word become void and worthless?

Afdave, how about this: "Dr. Kirk Bertsche Writes That C14 Testing is Occasionally Not Blind."

Originally posted by Augustine2004

Afdave, how about this: "Dr. Kirk Bertsche Writes That C14 Testing is Occasionally Not Blind."

It's nice to see the posters at RnR aren't letting Dave get away with his deliberate misrepresentation of Dr. Bertsche but are hammering Dave on his dishonesty relentlessly.

Dave in return has offered his standard dodge of "well, C14 dating is still unreliable because of all the bad assumptions it makes" but is still too cowardly to put in writing what those bad assumption are. It's another one of Dave's "use vague weasel words" dishonest tactics, like his backhanded insinuations that all C14 researchers are involved in deliberate fraud.

It's amazing he can still look at himself in the mirror and call himself a Christian.

- T

Originally posted by afdave

Do you know how many times I've been told by people who only want to hear evidence for their Old Earth Views say that I have now sunk to a new level? I guess you could say that, for them, I'm a pioneer! :-)

I am curious to know if Dr. Bertsch thinks it constitutes a misquote to link to his post as follows ...

Dr Kirk Bertsche Confirms That C14 Testing is Not Blind

Would you prefer the insertion of the word "normally" before "not"? That's not much different, but if it would pacify the wolves, I'll be happy to oblige.

1) The post in question is surrounded by a context, a context that tells a very different story than that one post. Thus you are grossly misleading the reader as to the implications of the comment in that post.

2) You are using the post to imply that people testing c14 manipulate the results. What Bertse is telling you is that someone in the lab has knowledge of a ballpark expectation for what the date will be. This does not imply that expectation drives the result. As Bertse explained in later posts, that knowledge is used to help avoid mistakes in processing, not drive the results. That is, if an unexpected date came back, the only result would be to look for sources of error or contaimination. And Bertse also mentions later that this ballpark estimate boils down to 'relatively recent' or 'fairly old'.

3) The tests that were run for suigetsu - apparently the subject in which you are arguing this issue - WERE RUN BLIND.

Originally posted by Tiggy

This is despite the fact Dave has been shown the Suigetsu samples were double-blind tested since they were being considered for a C14 calibration reference.

So you are misleading the reader into thinking the fact that sometimes there is someone in the lab who knows an expected age has some bearing on the suigetsu results!

Your entire game is to draw a shadow across the processes used to derive the suigetsu results, and hence to undermine its credibiity as a witness to the age of the earth. Yet there is not real shadow. These results were obtained by the best known methods to avoid bias and distortion or manipulation of the reslts.

Dave, this is not some political race! We are looking for the truth here. If the truth is that the Suigetsu varve data implies great age, we want to know. If it doesn't, we want to know. And God is the one observing these proceedings, and He will not tolerate a false weight on a scale to skew the results! That means you pretending these results are somehow skewed when they are not is a 'false weight' on the scale of evaluating the suigetsu 'worth' in judging the age of the Earth. It is no less evil than using false weights to undermine the value of the gold or silver being presented in payment. In essense, it is theivery. You steal the truth from those who would listen to your words.

It is deception. It is misleading. And it is wrong. If you follow Chirst, that means you are obligated to stop.


Jim

Originally posted by afdave

Do you know how many times I've been told by people who only want to hear evidence for their Old Earth Views say that I have now sunk to a new level? I guess you could say that, for them, I'm a pioneer! :-)

I am curious to know if Dr. Bertsch thinks it constitutes a misquote to link to his post as follows ...

Dr Kirk Bertsche Confirms That C14 Testing is Not Blind

Would you prefer the insertion of the word "normally" before "not"? That's not much different, but if it would pacify the wolves, I'll be happy to oblige.

Dave, you shouldn't have to ask what I think of your intentional misrepresentations of my statements. You are a deceiver, and your un-Christlike behavior is a serious stumbling block for the unsaved.

Originally posted by afdave
Do you know how many times I've been told by people who only want to hear evidence for their Old Earth Views say that I have now sunk to a new level? I guess you could say that, for them, I'm a pioneer! :-)

I am curious to know if Dr. Bertsch thinks it constitutes a misquote to link to his post as follows ...

Dr Kirk Bertsche Confirms That C14 Testing is Not Blind

Would you prefer the insertion of the word "normally" before "not"? That's not much different, but if it would pacify the wolves, I'll be happy to oblige.

Dave, it isn't about pacifying the wolves. it's about being honest and forthright. It's about not just talking the talk about being a Christian, it's about walking the walk. Can you honestly say that you are walking the correct path here when your actions are so full of deceit and deception? Is that what Christ taught us? I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of chiding you like this for I'm fully aware that I'm certainly no ideal Christian and am brimming with my own faults. However, you have gone well beyond what St. Augustine warned us about when he wrote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

In your case Dave, you have magnified this error by wrapping it in deliberate and willful deceit and dishonesty. Then in arrogant pride you boast of this wretched behavior when you crow that this makes you a "pioneer!"
If you are ever going to turn this around you must act immediately. A good start would be to answer the questions that you specifically said you would on grmorton's burrows thread. Follow that by ceasing to mischaracterize Dr. Bertsche's remarks and apologize (you didn't even have the decency to do it here but went elsewhere to do so where you thought you could get away with it). Dave you need to turn yourself around. Now.

Afdave it's a sin to bear false witness. In general, it's a sin to misrepresent things.

Originally posted by afdave

Do you know how many times I've been told by people who only want to hear evidence for their Old Earth Views say that I have now sunk to a new level? I guess you could say that, for them, I'm a pioneer! :-)

I am curious to know if Dr. Bertsch thinks it constitutes a misquote to link to his post as follows ...

Dr Kirk Bertsche Confirms That C14 Testing is Not Blind

Would you prefer the insertion of the word "normally" before "not"? That's not much different, but if it would pacify the wolves, I'll be happy to oblige.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Is that what you are doing, dave?


...


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

And this is a forum full of Christians, dave.

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

Is this why you are leaving? Is this why you prefer 'sceptic' forums, where you can blame the bad opinion people have for you on the Evil Darwinist Atheist Conspiracy, and not your own shortcomings against your very beliefs?

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

Originally posted by Faid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Is that what you are doing, dave?


...


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

And this is a forum full of Christians, dave.

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

Is this why you are leaving? Is this why you prefer 'sceptic' forums, where you can blame the bad opinion people have for you on the Evil Darwinist Atheist Conspiracy, and not your own shortcomings against your very beliefs?

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

That's a great post Faid. You should repost it over at RnR on the Lake Suigetsu thread.

- T

Hi Kirk ... You say I shouldn't have to ask, but I did ask and it is proper for me to ask ... And I will ask again ... Why do you think I am a deceiver? And how specifically do my words -- not what you think my words are from reading others -- misrepresent you? Did you or did you not say that AMS lab personnel want to know as much about the samples as possible? What will I find when I obtain sample submission forms? Will there be a blank for "expected age"? I have contacts at leading labs. Will they agree with you that it is deceptive to say that most testing is not blind?

Originally posted by afdave

Hi Kirk ... You say I shouldn't have to ask, but I did ask and it is proper for me to ask ... And I will ask again ... Why do you think I am a deceiver? And how specifically do my words -- not what you think my words are from reading others -- misrepresent you? Did you or did you not say that AMS lab personnel want to know as much about the samples as possible? What will I find when I obtain sample submission forms? Will there be a blank for "expected age"? I have contacts at leading labs. Will they agree with you that it is deceptive to say that most testing is not blind?

AFDave caught in his blatant dishonesty and STILL doesn't know when to shut up...sad. Pathetic and sad.

- T

It depends on which lab you go to if you are "required" to fill out anything about a guess on approximate age.

There is a simple reason for this and it's not due to dishonesty or collusion, it's because any indicators of age found along with the sample in question can help tell about contamination and how best to deal with it, should anomalous dates be found.

Note that if you submit samples to UC Irvine --and this is true of other labs like Arizona... they'll usually ask for a general sense of the time period, but it's up to you if you want to get precise...say if you find charcoal near a particular type of arrowpoint, or a basket from a particular archaeological period that is well-defined, you could say 3.5KYA

BUT...you could also just say "Holocene" or "between 5KYA - to perhaps 30KYA " or you could say nothing at all if you have no clue. Eh, I was going to leave a story about this up, but it might leave clues about me that I don't want to leave. Suffice it to say that you can fill in: "unknown"

You also should tell them if you've pre-treated the sample yourself, or if you suspect contamination.

Perhaps you'll use that to now imply that there is concious or subconcious collusion and widespread faking of dates, but I wish you'd say THAT to the "contacts" you have at the labs you claim to have contact with...they'll tell you where to stick your claim.

Edit: I suspected there were online forms and ...yes, there are...here's the Arizona form: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/s...le_sheet04.htm Note that you can fill out "expected age" to be whatever you want, so long as it falls within lab capability.
Similarly, UC Irvine-Keck has instructions and forms online, too...and lo and behold, they say exactly what I mentioned.. http://www.ess.uci.edu/ams/Sample%20Submission%201.htm

Please fill out the sample submission form and provide the following additional information:

A. Brief (a few sentences) description of the project including overall objectives, reason for 14C measurements, any relevant previous dating work, etc.

B. Brief description of sampling methodology and any pre-treatment already applied (eg, forams picked from marine sediments, sonicated in alcohol, etc).

C. Sample list: your lab number for each sample; a descriptive ID if is available (containing eg, stratigraphic information, species/sample material, etc – core 58PC, 325 cm , bulloides); sample type (CO2, macrofossil, graphite, HPLC fraction, etc); measured or estimated carbon content; approximate expected age (eg bomb 14C, modern, Holocene, ca. 40ka, etc).

D. Assessment of possible problems in interpretation, if applicable.

There's very simple means of testing labs for yourself, Davey...break out the checkbook and submit samples of known approximate age to help out a student at a local university with an archaeo program. There's some near you. Conversely, you could go with me to pick out some samples from known sites...but you may not want to do that given your reaction to me accepting your invitation for sampling coal...you seemed to have a panic attack at that and dropped the notion IMMEDIATELY. Don't worry, Davey...I won't "kick you and stab you in the neck" as you suggested I would back at AtBC. I wouldn't want to do the time for your worthless life -- all that *I* asked for is that you keep a civil tongue in your mouth and not pull your underhanded smarmy games with me in person. But I guess that's just too much to ask.

Originally posted by afdave
Hi Kirk ... You say I shouldn't have to ask, but I did ask and it is proper for me to ask ... And I will ask again ... Why do you think I am a deceiver? And how specifically do my words -- not what you think my words are from reading others -- misrepresent you? Did you or did you not say that AMS lab personnel want to know as much about the samples as possible? What will I find when I obtain sample submission forms? Will there be a blank for "expected age"? I have contacts at leading labs. Will they agree with you that it is deceptive to say that most testing is not blind?

Blatantly searching for more quotes to twist and distort I see.

Originally posted by afdave

Hi Kirk ... You say I shouldn't have to ask, but I did ask and it is proper for me to ask ... And I will ask again ... Why do you think I am a deceiver? And how specifically do my words -- not what you think my words are from reading others -- misrepresent you? Did you or did you not say that AMS lab personnel want to know as much about the samples as possible? What will I find when I obtain sample submission forms? Will there be a blank for "expected age"? I have contacts at leading labs. Will they agree with you that it is deceptive to say that most testing is not blind?

Dave, will you also ask your "contacts" WHEN blind tests are performed, and for what reason?

Will you ask them how many measurements they make for each sample?

Will you ask them about whether discordant dates are examined, evaluated, tested and published, along with all their measurement history?

Kirk has mentioned and explained all these things to you. WIll you also ask those labs?

Will you make their answers public?

Will you post them on your blog?


...Or will you simply ask "is all testing blind", get a "no" for an answer, and triumphantly post that on your blog?



...


Dave, don't you care the least about how this behavior of yours makes you look, especially on this forum?


Have you no shame, dave? NO shame at all?

Originally posted by deadman_932

It depends on which lab you go to if you are "required" to fill out anything about a guess on approximate age.

There is a simple reason for this and it's not due to dishonesty or collusion, it's because any indicators of age found along with the sample in question can help tell about contamination and how best to deal with it, should anomalous dates be found.

Note that if you submit samples to UC Irvine --and this is true of other labs like Arizona... they'll usually ask for a general sense of the time period, but it's up to you if you want to get precise...say if you find charcoal near a particular type of arrowpoint, or a basket from a particular archaeological period that is well-defined, you could say 3.5KYA

BUT...you could also just say "Holocene" or "between 5KYA - to perhaps 30KYA " or you could say nothing at all if you have no clue. Eh, I was going to leave a story about this up, but it might leave clues about me that I don't want to leave. Suffice it to say that you can fill in: "unknown"

You also should tell them if you've pre-treated the sample yourself, or if you suspect contamination.

Perhaps you'll use that to now imply that there is concious or subconcious collusion and widespread faking of dates, but I wish you'd say THAT to the "contacts" you have at the labs you claim to have contact with...they'll tell you where to stick your claim.

Edit: I suspected there were online forms and ...yes, there are...here's the Arizona form: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/s...le_sheet04.htm Note that you can fill out "expected age" to be whatever you want, so long as it falls within lab capability.
Similarly, UC Irvine-Keck has instructions and forms online, too...and lo and behold, they say exactly what I mentioned.. http://www.ess.uci.edu/ams/Sample%20Submission%201.htm


There's very simple means of testing labs for yourself, Davey...break out the checkbook and submit samples of known approximate age to help out a student at a local university with an archaeo program. There's some near you. Conversely, you could go with me to pick out some samples from known sites...but you may not want to do that given your reaction to me accepting your invitation for sampling coal...you seemed to have a panic attack at that and dropped the notion IMMEDIATELY. Don't worry, Davey...I won't "kick you and stab you in the neck" as you suggested I would back at AtBC. I wouldn't want to do the time for your worthless life -- all that *I* asked for is that you keep a civil tongue in your mouth and not pull your underhanded smarmy games with me in person. But I guess that's just too much to ask.

So basically my suspicion that ages are "known" beforehand is true and all these objections about me supposedly misrepresenting Kirk and misrepresenting the true facts surrounding AMS dating are utter hogwash.

As I thought.

And you people are lecturing ME about my Christian ethics! Wow. Do you people ever stop and think about how you look when you act like this?

Originally posted by afdave

So basically my suspicion that ages are "known" beforehand is true and all these objections about me supposedly misrepresenting Kirk and misrepresenting the true facts surrounding AMS dating are utter hogwash.

As I thought.

And you people are lecturing ME about my Christian ethics! Wow. Do you people ever stop and think about how you look when you act like this?

no - sometimes, when they are not purposefully blind or double blind testing (as in the case of suigetsu) someone guesses an approximate expected date - for the purpose of prompting a double check of procedure if the result is way out of the expected ballpark.

You ARE misrepresenting what kirk and others are saying - BY SAYING WHAT YOU BOLDED ABOVE - as this is a misleading simplification of what has been said.


My statements and others about your ethics stand - even more so as rather than trying to understand why what you are doing is mischaracterizing what has been said (which you already know) you still continue to play little games and act is if you are justified. You forget that there is a God out there who KNOWS what you know, who knows your motives, even the deepest ones you don't know: You will have to answer to him, and word games don't work with Him.


Jim