From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:02:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1gtn6iINNhah@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
 Livesey) writes:

>I'll add that when I got sick of hearing Bob Bales going on about how
>this and that process, or contamination, or whatever, could make a 
>single radiodating incorrect,

And just what is wrong with giving experimental and theoretical references to
support what I said?

> I gave him a challenge.

>I asked him to come up with a model with these processes.   That is,
>explain what it is that he thinks is happening, show the mathematics
>behind it.

I haven't done this exactly. But I have produced both several theoreticsl
methods (statistical influences, contamination), which could produce wrong
results, as well as experimental observation of wrong results.  I also note
that the reference which cited contamination as the source did not give a
mathematical model.  So I challange Jon to either convince the authors of my
reference that they shouldn't publish their conclusions without a
mathematical model or explan why a statement should be treated differently when
a creationist makes it than when a scientific journal makes it.

I'll quote something Chris Colby said a while back when discussing abiogenesis:

# Having a mechanism generally helps (it helped plate
#tectonics become accepted), but isn't always needed to get something
#generally accepted in science.


I didn't see John disagreeing.  So if specific mechanisms, with mathematical
models are NOT needed to claim that abiogensis happened without intelligent
intervention, why ARE they needed to claim that isochrons *may* be in error?

>   In particular, show how a sample could be contaminated
>in such a way that it could consistently falsify isochron methods.

We know, at least, that one isochron could be incorrect.  Therefore, any
isochron from the sample could be incorrect.  Jon's claim is that such
incorrect isochrons would not agree.  I challanged him to show evidence for
his claim.  I have not seen any.  In fact, at least in this posting, Jon has
not presented any evidence whatsoever to show that my statements on isochrons
are wrong.

>As far as I can tell, what Bob did this time is what he always does.
>He's on a FUD campaign.    He pulls out quotations from here and there
>in which respectable scientists warn one another of possible pitfalls 
>in the method, and then uses them to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt,
>hoping to impeach the method without ever coming to grips with it.

From my point of view, which I will stress is my own opinion only, this
posting shows the earmarks of a FUD.  "Respectable" scientists seems to imply
that my position is not respectable.  "Pulls out quotations" suggests, at
least to me, that the quotations are out of context. It all implies "(Maybe)
Bales is shading things.  In any case, he doesn't know what he is talking
about. So let's just ignore what he says."  All without, as Jon says, ever
coming to grips with my claims -- as is shown by the lack of observed data to
rebut them.


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

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