From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Date: 20 Dec 92 05:56:29 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <8023@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
|> 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?

Nothing at all, if they backed up your claims.

|> 
|> > 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.

It's just more rhetorical mush, isn't it, Mr Bales.   You admit that you
have ducked the question: "I haven't done this exactly"    Exactly(!)

But hey, now that you haven't doen this "exactly" wouldn't it be a neat idea
to try to change the question?    And so.....

> 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?

I think you just answered your own question.   We *don't* claim to have
hard evidence of abiogenisis.  Every book or article I have ever read
on the subject has been clearly marked as being speculation - except the
Creationist ones.   They're always quite sure they are right.   It *has*
to be speculation, because whatever conditions were present at the time
of a/several abiogensis is unreproducible.    It's unreproducible because
now we have life.

But there is another fundamental difference, which is that there is
no concept of cross-checking when we speculate about abiogenesis.  And
it is the qestion of cross-checking that is so crucial to the issue of
radio-dating.    Mr Bales can hem and haw all he likes, and he can
point out all the possible difficulties he likes, but he can't explain
away the existing mass of data on radio-dating unless he can do better
than "could produce wrong results".   "It might be wrong" gets you off 
the hook with one set of data, not with many.

So I have to say that this appears to be nothing more than another of 
Mr Bales' attempts to muddy the water.


Hey, I'm not complaining, you know.   If Mr Bales ever did answer a
question in a straightforward way, it would shake the foundations of
my world.   So the current situation is quite acceptable.

jon.