From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:24:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I probably shouldn't, but I'll jump in here.  I don't think that Bob
is lying in the sense that he is saying something that he believes is
untrue.  IMHO it seems that Bob is just phenomenally incompetent about
understanding the objections to his various "explanations".  Bob, I
think you're better off accepting the "liar" tag personally...

In any case:

In article <7695@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM 
      (Robert W Bales) writes:

}Jon Livesey writes:
...

}>Mr Bales was asked to explain the congruence of multiple instances of
}>isochrons, and he *failed* to do so.
}
}On the contrary, I have explicitly addressed this point a number of
}times.

However, you have never given the explanation which you yet again
*claim* to give in this post.  See below.

...

}In other words, I gave examples of processes which could cause isocrhons to
}agree.  And examples of processes which could cause isochrons to agree form,
}*by definition*, an explanation for how they could agree.

This you most definitely have not done (though I believe you might
think you have).

}The characterization of my examples as "other processes at work that we don't
}fully understand" is misleading.   The impression is that I have just waved
}my hands and said "something could happen."  The reality is that I have given
}examples of processes which textbooks on radioactive dating say can give wrong
}dates.

No, the reality is more like you saying "something could happen" to
make those wrong dates just happen to agree.

}  The reality is that I have given examples which are known -- by old-
}earth theorists -- to have given the wrong dates.

But you have *not* then shown that any of these examples lead to
*consistent* wrong dates.  It's truly amazing to me that you can type
the following and think that it has "explained" the problem:

}In the September 24 posting, I said:
}
}     For the better part of a year, starting with a formal debate with
}     Chris Stassen, most of most of my postings ings dealt with the age
}     of the earth.  I mentioned a number of times that isochron dates
}     are based on measurements of radioactive isotopes and that radio-
}     active isotopes are known, both from theoretical considerations and
}     actual measurements, to at times be poor indicators of age.  
}     I attributed the errors in isochron dates to these factors.  The
}     statement was made (many times) that isochrons were self-checking
}     and hence not subject to these errors.  I responded that this was so
}     according to a theory which has not been validated.

This paragraph indicates a complete lack of understanding of topics
which have been bandied about here ad nauseum in direct response to
you (e.g. how would you "validate" them?  Do you want 3 billion years
of videotape showing the rocks existing?).  More importantly for the
subject at hand, it does not say anything about why *different*
isochrons should agree on the measured date.  

}This is in the nature of a summary.  However, on or about October 27, I wrote
}the following, which is *more* than a "slightest attempt."
}
}     I must not have been clear enough in what I said.  Experiment and
}     observations indicate that isotope ratios are a reflection of all
}     geological processes which have occurred. Thus, the values and
}     consistancy of the results depends upon what processes have
}     occurred.  Chris is claiming, however, that consistent results are
}     a special case, in that of all the processes which affect isotope
}     rations, only *one* -- the passage of time -- could produce
}     such results.  This assertion is stated as if it is a self-
}     evident fact. It is not.
}
}     Again, Chris is making the claim that internal consistancy is
}     evidence of accuracy.  Throughout science, this is not assummed
}     to be the case.  

Really?  What other evidence of accuracy is there, Bob?

}>As soon as I saw that, I posted a request that he try to actually
}>answer the question.   I even asked him to spell out what processes
}>he had in mind, and how they could cause five isochrons to coincide.
}
}>As usual, he simply went to earth, and ignored the posting.
}
}I don't remember now which postings I responded to.  However, the quotes show
}that I did not ignore the subject.  In addition, on November 4, I posted a
}quote from "Use of Correlation Statistics with Rubidium-Strontium Systemics,
}by Felix Chayes _Science_, vol 196, June 10, 1977, pages 1234-1235
}
}
}     "It is possible, of course, that the common element bias is
}     negligibly small, but this is a matter requiring demonstration
}     or convincing rationalization in each specific case.  That the
}     denominator may perhaps be serving only as a convienient scaling
}     device provides no escape; use of an uncorrelated scaling
}     variable whose varience is sufficiently large will impose strong
}     positive correlation on *any* pair of variables whose negative
}     correlation is less than perfect.  That the scaled data cluster
}     closely about a regression line is then mearly a consequence of
}     the choice of scaling variable and says nothing about the nature
}     of the relation between the variables being scaled."  (page
}     1234)

Once again, Bob, you have *NOT* addressed a scenario whereby different
                           ^^^ 
methods will agree.  Unless I'm deeply mistaken, this quote was part
of a passage describing that it is possible to get a single isochron
measurement to produce an apparent age even if said result is
spurious.  It does *NOT* say anything about a mechanism that would
                    ^^^ 
lead multiple isochron measurements to consistently indicate a
spurious age.

}The statement I am refuting is that I have no answered as to how five
}isochrons could agree but still be wrong.  Since the lines quoted above are
}an answer to/explanation of this, 

If you really believe this, then it's not fair to call you a liar.
Just abysmally obtuse.

}My dispute with Jim is of long standing.  But since Jon and Michael appear to
}have decided that I am a liar because of this one case, I ask them to tell me
}in what sense my quotes above are not an answer/explanation [*] 

Can you see it yet?

}   Bob Bales

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins