From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:20:29 GMT


Jon Livesey writes:

|> > Jim Meritt
|>   me

|> >He hasn't covered a LOT of recent items (like "how do 5 isochrons give the
|> >same date", "how does argon get INTO an object in vacuum", "what is the
|> >evidence for an old universe that you keep mentioning" and more.

|> On about Septeber 24, I posted a refutation of a number of items in Jim's
|> list, including *specifically* the above.  If Jim responded, I didn't see
|> the response.  He may not have seen my ~Sept. 24 article.  If he didn't, I
|> will be glad to repost it.  In any case, the assertion above is flat wrong.

>No, you did not!

Michael Simeon has also joined in, calling me "blatently dishonest."

>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.

>He posted his usual stuff about how there might be other processes at work
>that we don't fully understand,

At times, there have been discussions on what biological terms mean, but I
didn't believe we'd have a problem with common English!

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.

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

>but he did not make the slightest attempt to show how, in that case,
>five isochrons could coincide.

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 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.  Chris is asking that a different standard be
     used with respest to dating than is used elsewhere.  It is up to
     the maker of the assertion to justify it without placing the
      burden of proof on others to disprove it.


>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)

>Now he is claiming he "refuted" "*specifically* the above".   This isn't just
>a wild claim.     This is an attempt to claim credit for something he has not
>done, even after being challenged and being asked explicitly to do it.


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, since I wrote the lines, and since I did
so for at least some of them prior to the time Jim made his statement, my
claim is a simple declaration of established fact.

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 [*] and why
(assuming they still believe it isn't) the matter should not be called a
difference of opinion instead of an example of "blatent dishonesty."

[*] They do not have to agree with it for it to be an explanation

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins