Ok, really we are doing this? Ok, what were the 52 dates arrived at in the raw data?
Why didn’t you address the rest of my post?
The third entry down has just 2 analyses with an error of 0.2. With just two analyses the error represents the actual spread of the 2 data points which would be 0.4 million years. That’s less than a 1% error rate. There are also entries with a single analyis with a low error rate.
Because the rest of your post is irrelevant until you know that the 52 dates were. What were the 52 raw dates? You are the one making us re-run the entire analysis because you refuse to admit what the original errors were.
What are the specific 52 dates? Answer: you do not know and they are not going to tell you. If they did, it would only prove my point that radio dating is all over the place and not a reliable science to any degree.
What are the 52 dates?
It is very relevant. Here it is again.
The third entry down has just 2 analyses with an error of 0.2. With just two analyses the error represents the actual spread of the 2 data points which would be 0.4 million years. That’s less than a 1% error rate. There are also entries with a single analyis with a low error rate.
Give me all the raw dates obtained in the entire analysis.
You are the one making the claims that they are millions of years apart. Are you telling us that you don’t have the data to back up this accusation?
2 Likes
No I don’t have the data and you would be afraid to see it. I think this ends our discussion. You full well know that to arrive at any kind of convincing date in this so-called science that many varied dates - some millions, even billions (depending on the stratum) of years apart - is necessary to finally hand any kind of convincing number to the public.
You have made your decision to be pulled in and convinced of this kind of sloppy science. So be it. I refuse to give my consent.
That is all.
But I am still curious about the 10,000 gap. @Timothy_Horton claim is specious because 1. he is claiming a date greater than 10-12K years ago and 2. why would I believe that there was only a single noteworthy eruption inside that 10,000 year gap? You gotta do better than that.
You didn’t want to look for it?
I think the readers here are able to determine for themselves who is promoting sloppy science.
That’s doubtful. Curiosity doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
Come on. Why the 10K year gap? Please, I’m serious here. Are you saying that does not trouble you? Are you willing to turn a blind eye to suspicion? Something is amiss, tilt. There is a cover-up going on.
@Timothy_Horton already covered it:
Did you even bother to look at the dates for the other large earlier Quaternary eruptions?
Earlier Quaternary eruptions (kA year ago)
12.9
17
29
30
41.5
52
73
84
90
95
120
140
220
233
270
325
450
Lots of gaps in the list larger than 10,000 years. Why does the most recent one bother you so?
3 Likes
Here is yet another paper listing the raw data you claimed I was too scared to look at:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/257/5072/954.full.pdf
In Table 3, the spread of the samples is 65.03 to 65.10 million years at the extremes. In Table 4, the spread of the raw data at the extremes is 64.88 to 65.31 million years. Both are less than 1% variation.
Want to keep going?
3 Likes
Your paranoia does not constitute evidence.
1 Like
Why in the world would anyone want to “cover up” the dates of ancient large volcanic eruption which happen irregularly, often with tens of thousands of years between them? It’s not the same volcano or the same part of the world for each eruption.
I cannot open the article. But it is not really going to be necessary. If I am talking to someone who truly believes that the spread of raw samples was only 1% variance, we are not going to be able to continue. Without consulting any data, I can guarantee you that when you cite 1%, you are looking at the their final, agreed upon results, that is, after much of the data was massaged and some of it even fudged to fit.
Sorry, but as I said yesterday, you are far too easy to convince in this arena. You are exactly the kind of person they are counting on to read and repeat the data to others. You and I truly do not have a common foundation from which to even converse on this issue.
How can you possibly guarantee such a thing when you’ve never even seen the raw data or examined the methods used to amass it? You’re arguing 100% from personal incredulity, not from any evidence at all.
2 Likes
I am reporting what is in the paper for single samples. If your only argument is a conspiracy of fudging data then you really don’t have an argument.
@r_speir has already stated on several occasions that empirical evidence is not relevant to questions about the past. Only his interpretation of Genesis is relevant. It’s a mystery why he makes even the feeble attempts he does to engage with the evidence, given his epistemological position.
4 Likes
I thought this video from a technician at the A.E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory in Ottawa, was interesting. Not much for glossy production value, but she takes you along on a great walkthrough for C14 sample prep at a world class facility. A lot of know how goes into making these measurements.
3 Likes
Alright, now it’s your turn to explain the ‘empirical evidence’ shown here that says something is missing regarding volcanic activity on the planet the farther back in time we go.
Starting with the 10,000 year gap I first brought up - why don’t you explain what happened and why we do not find any volcanic activity?
Then going with @Timothy_Horton 's list, why don’t you proffer an explanation for that as well.
Earlier Quaternary eruptions (kA year ago)
12.9
17
29
30
41.5
52
73
84
90
95
120
140
220
233
270
325
450