[Creationist alleges that] Carbon 14 AMS Physicist Confirms Creationist Assertions

[Dave Hawkins]

Dr. Kirk Bertsche worked as an accelerator physicist at a leading AMS lab according to his post HERE.

Later, when I asked him this question ...

A question for Kirk ...

Is AMS testing such as this normally done "blind"? That is does the lab know the approximate age that the sample is expected to be?

He answered thusly ...

The folks preparing the samples normally want to know as much as possible about the samples, so they can use the appropriate pretreatments. This often includes knowing the approximate date.

The samples are then assigned numbers and are measured. Sometimes the measurement is by the same folks and sometimes by different people, so in some cases they know the approximate ages and in other cases they don't. But generally someone in the lab knows the approximate age.

Notable exceptions are the measurements of the Shroud of Turin and the subsequent international intercomparisons every few years. These intercomparisons are all done blind.

Kirk

This seems to support creationist John Woodmorappe's discussion of this topic referenced HERE. Yes, we're talking about long age isotopes vs. short, but it seems that non-blind testing is the norm with both.

And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE, where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

[Occam's Aftershave]

WTF Dave? You've only had this explained to you fifty times on at least four different boards. Do you think the fifty-first time is going to be any different?

You just got done getting reamed over your blatant lying about Dr. Bertsche's statements. What in the hell do you think you can possibly accomplish by starting yet another thread on the same topic??

[Lucretius III]

Dave you are being particularly stupid and annoying over this .
Far from descending into a mess the other thread has in fact answered your "problem" which you would know if you actually bothered to think about what has been said to you.
That you do not like the answer is YOUR problem.
Your continued veiled assertions of widespread fraud in C14 dating and outright refusal to apologize for this is depressing in the extreme .
Dave have a sit down with a cup of tea read what you have been told and think about it
For God's sake (intentional this ) take off your Creationist glasses and behave like a rational human being for once

[Rant over for now at least )

[Ray Moscow]

Dave, it seems to me that you are expected a controversy where none exists.

Of course lab techs like to know the approximate value or quantity of the key components for a sample -- so that they can calibrate the equipment, prepare reagents in the right concentrations, etc. It's 10 times more work if you have no idea where to start with any particular analysis -- sometimes you don't even know which method to use till you have some idea of the concentration to be measured.

Remember chemistry lab?

[Mike PSS]

Here you go Dave.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

C'mon Dave. Let's go back to square one on this discussion.

Here's Kitagawa's paper outlining ALL the core data from 1993 and 1998.

CYTOPLASMIC MASSES PRESERVED IN EARLY HOLOCENE DIATOMS: A POSSIBLE TAPHONOMIC PROCESS AND ITS PALEO-ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Why, that's a new one. What do we find in this link? Why, evidence of annual varves that's what.

There you go Dave. MORE evidence of the annual nature of the varves, independently arrived at without using 14C or anything else.


Oh, here's some more....
Advanced Micro-XRF Method to Separate Sedimentary Rhythms and Event Layers in Sediments: Its Application to Lacustrine Sediment from Lake Suigetsu, Japan

Read that Dave? These guys have enough data from the Lake Suigetsu cores to derive millennial-scale variations.
Do you know what that means? Why, that means that the Lake Suigetsu varves go back tens of thousands of years for these researchers to detect AND derive a millennial-scale variation.

And let's not forget this....
The Emperor Seamounts: Southward
Motion of the Hawaiian Hotspot Plume in Earth’s Mantle

Wait a minute? How did that get in here. This thread is only to show you Lake Suigetsu evidence for an old earth. We'll have to wait to get to the Emperor Seamount : Hawaiin Chain evidence.

Moving on...
The Groningen AMS tandetron
S. Wijma, J. van der Plicht *
Here's the write-up for the Groningen AMS facility that did all the 14C testing.

Episodic Holocene loess deposition in central Nebraska
Oooopss again Dave. Here's some loess deposits near your house that date back over 9000 years. I don't know what this has to do with Lake Suigetsu? Do you?

Lake Suigetsu Pollen Data and Climate Reconstructions
Here's tables and tables of data from Lake Suigetsu pollen. Bunches of Data Dave. Any ideas?

And finally, here's a paper that answers your "recent history" questions about the Lake.
Changes of eco-systems in the last 500 years caused by human impacts in Lake Suigetsu, central Japan.

Care to comment on this Dave?

Let's drop the nonsense discussions and look at the facts Dave. Just the facts.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Here's a neat table.

Look at the tables in the back of this paper from Radiocarbon....
Here's Kitagawa's paper outlining ALL the core data from 1993 and 1998.

Then look at the attached image table from the Groningen Lab.
The Groningen AMS tandetron
S. Wijma, J. van der Plicht *

Attachment 21

NOTE: They do question ONE of the data points as possible contamination. But, as can be seen, this is only a small variance in an otherwise consistent line.

More data for you.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I'd be tempted to think this is just an April Fool's joke by Dave, except for the fact that he posts repetitive stupidity like this 365 days a year.

[Lucretius III]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

I'd be tempted to think this is just an April Fool's joke by Dave, except for the fact that he posts repetitive stupidity like this 365 days a year.

366 this year

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

...


And don't forget the highly publicized "dating" of KNM-ER 1470, discussed HERE, where a the first radiometric date obtained was in the 230 MY range. It was rejected and the sample redated because it did not conform to expectations, i.e. humans were supposedly not around 230 MYO. Why not just do the test and accept it if RM dating is so reliable? Why not adjust your idea about when humans lived rather than reject the test?

..

Ah, a new board.
A perfect opportunity for a reboot.

Let's pretend that this dead horse hasn't been beaten to a fine pink mist.

Let me introduce you to a very important concept in science, Dave. It's called consilience. It works like this: any deduction, if it's true, can generally be arrived at and/or confirmed in several different ways. That's because physics and nature are consistent.


So when someone finds some data that indicates, for instance, that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1957, we can pretty safely say there's something wrong with the chain of data leading to that conclusion. That's because there is tons of independent evidence that shows that can't possibly be true. So we reject it. Same with 230 million year old humans. There's tons of independent evidence that that's wrong. You may not know immediately what's wrong, though contamination is an obvious suspect.

It's this concept of consilience that allows us to use technology judiciously. We don't instantly decide that all of radiodating is invalid because of one anomalous result. We look at each result in the context of everything else we've learned, and ask ourselves: "does this fit? If not, is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? Or does it call for rejecting everything else we've learned?"

Of course, in order to exercise this new concept, we have to do a bit of reading up on what has been learned, and how it has been learned. Fortunately, there are whole libraries full of these "book" things. (This being a reboot, fresh start, back to square one and all, it seems appropriate that I should "introduce" the concept of actually reading at least one of those "book" things on a subject before you declare yourself more knowledgeable in it than the people who have studied, done research, and taught that subject.)

[Febble]

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post.

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.

[Lucretius III]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Ah, a new board.
A perfect opportunity for a reboot.

Let's pretend that this dead horse hasn't been beaten to a fine pink mist.

Let me introduce you to a very important concept in science, Dave. It's called consilience. It works like this: any deduction, if it's true, can generally be arrived at and/or confirmed in several different ways. That's because physics and nature are consistent.


So when someone finds some data that indicates, for instance, that Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1957, we can pretty safely say there's something wrong with the chain of data leading to that conclusion. That's because there is tons of independent evidence that shows that can't possibly be true. So we reject it. Same with 230 million year old humans. There's tons of independent evidence that that's wrong. You may not know immediately what's wrong though contamination is an obvious suspect.

It's this concept of consilience that allows us to use technology judiciously. We don't instantly decide that all of radiodating is invalid because of one anomalous result. We look at each result in the context of everything else we've learned, and ask ourselves: "does this fit? If not, is it 'the exception that proves the rule'? Or does it call for rejecting everything else we've learned?"

Of course, in order to exercise this new concept, we have to do a bit of reading up on what has been learned, and how it has been learned. Fortunately, there are whole libraries full of these "book" things. (This being a reboot, fresh start, back to square one and all, it seems appropriate that I should "introduce" the concept of actually reading at least one of those "book" things a subject before you declare yourself more knowledgeable in it than the people who have studied, done research, and taught that subject.)

Surely the problem is that for Dave and other Creationists is that they think they have THE book and all others are just pale imitiations regarding THE truth .

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The thread where this originally came up has degenerated into a mess, so I submit this thread with the hope that some responsible posters might have some insightful comments on this and hopefully be persuaded to the viewpoint that all future radiometric dating should be done BLIND.

Mod note: The only sense in which I can see that it is a mess is that you made allegations that a large number of posters were quick to refute.

If you have problems with any specific post or posts that you think are off-topic, please alert on them and I will split them out.

I know it's difficult when there is a pile-on, but I'm afraid that's the way it is when you make a controversial post. You need to deal with the objections on that thread - or at least some of them - not just repeat the allegations in a new thread, which will simply attract the same kind of pile-on unless you can deal with the hailstorm of rebuttals.

Alternatively we possibly can set up a thread where you engage with one other poster only, and we confine comment to a peanut gallery.


ETA: Dave was right about the last ream of posts. They are now split out.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Febble

Dave, please read (and respond to) this post.

You have misunderstood the difference between within- and between-dataset variance.

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

Yes, you are right about the off-topic stuff. I've already split them out.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Ray Moscow]

Alternately, Dave can deal with objections to his statements instead of setting conditions before doing so.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

This post is off-topic.

[Febble]

Mod note: Thread retitled by me (addition in square brackets)

[Dr. Octopus]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

We could have been rid of him so easily.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Alternately, Dave can deal with objections to his statements instead of setting conditions before doing so.

Well, the record should show that the derail posts were split out before he delivered his conditions. He was right. There was a derail I had failed to register.

[Occam's Aftershave]

OK dave, the derails are gone, this thread is just about radiocarbon dating.

So now will you explain why the empirically measured pMC values for the suigetsu layers decrease exponentially with depth?

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I will be glad to answer you on one condition ... that you first delete all the off topic posts from this thread, then prohibit further off topic posts. You seem to have no qualms about altering my title, so you should have no qualms about deleting off topic posts. When that's done, you'll get a nice, detailed polite response. Thanks.

Well, the condition has been met -- was in fact met before the condition was asserted.

What do we suppose the odds are that dave will fulfill on his promise?
Based on past behavior we might be forgiven entertaining a few doubts...

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[Faid]

I decided that the best way to respond to this person that goes by the name of dave Hawkins, of kids4truth and truthmatters.info, and claims to be a honest and sincere Christian, is to repeat my unanswered comments on his behavior at TW. Sorry if I am merely repeating myself from another forum, but I don't think dave deserves further attention on this- and, frankly, I take some pride in predicting his future behavior exactly back then (not that it was that hard.)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=264

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. [Well TW was- ]

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 of how dave now starts another thread, when cornered on his false claims about Kirk, claiming that we turned the first one into "a mess"]

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?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=274

[quote]Ages are NOT

KNOWN[unquote] beforehand, dave. Kirk has thoroughly explained the process. He made prfectly clear to you that the data is examined and evaluated in an unbiased way, EVEN WHEN an APPROXIMATE age is expected- NO, ESPECIALLY when an approximate age is expected. And if discordant dates are found, they are evaluated and PUBLISHED- along with their measurement history.

You KNOW all that. Kirk TOLD you. You KNOW that the actual "hogwash" is your previous slander against scientists: That they supposedly conduct hundreds of measurements for each sample, and that the supposedly hide or discard the ones they don't like, and publish only the ones that fit their preconceived notions.
And furthermore, you now KNOW that measurements that are used for calibrating and consiling data ARE double-blind. Like in SUIGETSU. Kirk told you that as well.

You KNOW all that. You KNOW that your slander was baseless.

But you choose to ignore it, and isolate a single phrase from Kirk's post, to distort and mangle ("know" in QUOTES? Pleeease, dave).

And, from now on, you will only refer to this distorted phrase, and you will conveniently ignore the essence of Kirk's post. And of course, your supposed "quest for the truth" will end right here: No further discussion, no more arguing. You got the quotemine you aimed for.

Compare what I had said back then, with what dave has been doing since, up to now, in this thread.

Spare us your tricks, dave. You're not fooling the lurkers. You're not fooling anyone.
Now apologize to Kirk Bertsche, and retract your false statement that he "admitted" scientists supposedly "typically reject" the dates that don't agree with the "expected age". He specifically DENIED that, and yet you keep asserting he didn't.
There's no way around it: Retract NOW, and stop avoiding your responsibility by bailing out from one thread to start another.

[Dave Hawkins]

Again, this thread is about blind testing in the field of radiometric dating. It appears that no off topic posts from this thread have been split off.

[Dr. Octopus]

Yeah, now go find something productive to do.

[Dave Hawkins]

MORE CONFIRMATION THAT BLIND TESTING WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO OE PARADIGMS

Houtermans, F. G. 1966. The Physical Principles of Geochronology. SR No. 151, p. 242.
“Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” Quoted by Woodmorappe in CRSQ 16:2, p. 123

And yet, when I, a creationist, deny the effectiveness of radiometric methods altogether, I am booed and hissed at.