Not Prince Hamlet

I'm having trouble finding the post that you're referring to. Can somebody post a direct URL for the challenge?

I did find a post where the guy said "Mathematic proofs are deductive". This much is half-true. Some proofs are deductive, but some are also inductive.

I know that's not the argument at hand, though. That's just something that struck me as interesting.

Jeff

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Vorkosigan,
Do you think they'd let up on me (or another Creationist)? Do you think they would not mock and dance and scorn, saying that I (or whatever Creationist was involved) obviously did not understand simple mathematics or science, since I could not discern an obvious and flagrant error? I guarantee you, the answer is that they would gleefully ridicule me, and for an extended period, probably beginning a thread just in order to do so. It's happened here before. It's amazing - you people want to be treated with kid gloves, and with utter respect, but you want to be able to pour contempt on those you disagree with, whenever you feel like it. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

You're the Christian here, so I'd imagine you're the expert in hypocrisy.

The difference, Douglas, is that the Infidels who hack on Creationists for their dumb errors don't keep us in suspense in this childish way. They go right for it. They don't "test" people like this. Believe it or not, you may well be wrong about finding an obvious error. All you had to do was point out the error, and elevate your credibility Now you're risking simply adding to the Bender Legend of Really Dumb Screw-Ups. Not only is it childish, it's bad tactics.

Just think how much it would have stuck in everyone's craw if you'd pointed out an error in an unassuming and polite way. Everyone would have had to admit that you were right. But no, you decided to behave this way. Know what's gonna happen? You're going to announce your earthshattering finding, and everyone is going to split their sides laughing...Oh, that? You've got to be kidding.....

Vorkosigan

Douglas J. Bender

Vorkosigan,


Gee, thanks. And no, I'm not a hypocrite.

Oh, okay. So if I went and said, "Man, what a bunch of loopy, idiotic, self-absorbed, mean-spirited, juvenile, mathematical imbeciles" (and I wouldn't say this, and don't think it, either) right away, then it'd be okee-dokee? That's an interesting lesson in civility, one I'd never heard before. Thanks.

No, I've checked, double-checked, and triple-checked, and it's even more obvious. And I'm not "testing" people in order to demean them - I have no hard feelings for Bill Snedden in this, for example, nor do I feel like he's an "idiot" or anything (I just wouldn't go first to him with a mathematics question, though ). Like I've said now, several times, I'm honestly curious to see if anyone else here can see the error, without my telling them (although I'm especially curious about some of the more obnoxious and arrogant posters here, such as Scientiae, and Goliath [who seems to have some kind of "issue" with me]).

It's not childish, because the "tactics" (and motives) are not the ones you attribute to me. Try to listen to what I say, please.

Maybe only very briefly. But then they could have consoled themselves by saying, "Yeah, but we would have seen that if we'd thought about it a bit more - a simple oversight". And they would go right back to berating me about my "mathematical and logical abilities". Now, as it is, if no one (or a very few) are able to see the error, after even a day of being "warned" that there is one, then my "abilities" would be seen for what they are - a bit better than average, at least; and hopefully I would not have to continue to deal so much with the juvenile attacks upon my "mathematical and logical abilities".

Not necessarily. I've pointed out in several places where I had been correct in three claims regarding the "Biblical Equations", and NO ONE has yet come out and admitted that I was right - one person simply dropped out of the thread, and another studiously avoids mention of his error, and instead attempts to shift the focus onto things like "So, no one agrees with your Biblical Equations, right?" Of course, in this particular case here, it would be more difficult to avoid admitting that I was right.

Behave what way? Stop projecting how you would "behave" in this circumstance, and try to understand what I've said - I've said that I am delaying explaining the error so that it can become clear whether or not my "mathematical and logical abilities" are actually rather good, at least in comparison to those here (not to denigrate those here, but to circumvent their knee-jerk reaction to my "mathematical and logical" claims, in that they almost automatically act as though I am clueless).

No, unless they would consider a complete and absolute refutation of ardipithecus' claim to be a laughable matter. His error is that glaring and serious, by the way.

However, for the sake of those here who seem to be just dying to know what the error is, I'll give a hint. Here's a concluding quote from ardipithecus' initial post at that forum:
And here's another hint (this is practically giving the answer away) (and, I ignored the "D" subscript "i" - to simplify the equations, I just considered the [assumed] case where there is only one isotope, "D" [doing so doesn't change the logic or mathematical validity]):
In Christ (means "forgiven of sin, trusting in Jesus, walking by the Spirit, a new [though not perfect] creature", essentially),

Douglas

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

faded_Glory

Douglas,

You cannot just ignore the third isotope without missing the whole point! The isochron method uses a third, stable isotope to circumvent a potential problem you would have with only two isotopes: how to know if daughter isotopes were already present when the rock solidified?

If your second hint, D[Now] = (e^kt - 1)(P[Now]) + D[Orig] is supposed to suggest that the basic parent/daughter method would fail if we don’t know the original amount of daughter isotope, you are absolutely right. And this is precisely the reason why the isochron method was introduced!

To quote Ardipithecus’s opening post:

Time to prove that you do not have to assume the
following in radiometric dating.

1) There was no daughter isotope present at the starts.
2) There has been no gain from or loss to outside the system.

We will look at two cases. Case 1 will be where #2 above
is true and case 2 is were #2 above is false.

The isochron, or three-isotope method he explains in the rest of his post does not correct for effects of atom exchange with the environment, but only avoids the issue of unknown quantities of originally present daughter isotope. He demonstrates correctly that the original amount of daughter isotope doesn’t matter if you have a third, stable isotope to measure against.

The issue of loss or gains from the environment cannot be easily corrected – but given the fact that we are talking about very hard, crystalline igneous rocks we can reasonably safely assume that such an exchange will be very small – unless one uses samples taken nearby obvious cracks and fissures through which hydrothermal exchange may have taken place. Careful sampling will make this risk negligible.

A somewhat more real risk is the possibility that some parts of the rock have solidified at a different time than others (that is, significant to the age we are measuring). This will result in different clusters of points rather than a nice straight line. As Ardipithecus points out, such plots are diagnostic of problems like that and may result in the dates being rejected. Such situations are quite rare, and can often be avoided by careful petrographic analysis of the rock and the samples.

You may want to read <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" target="_blank">this site </a> by a (Christian) scientist explaining various radiometric techniques in a bit more detail. In particular, study the Rubidium/Strontium method (fig. 4) which is exactly what this post is all about.

If you are interested in this kind of stuff, I posted <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001372" target="_blank"> a complete example </a> of a radiometric dating project some time ago on this Forum. It uses both this three-isotope method and also the nice Argon-Argon technique – both giving very consistent dates. All data are included in that post, so you can play around with it yourself.

fG

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Like I said, Douglas. Oh that....ROTFL

I've pointed out in several places where I had been correct in three claims regarding the "Biblical Equations", and NO ONE has yet come out and admitted that I was right

On the contrary, we all admitted you were totally correct.....in the World of Bender(tm). Out here in the real world though, you utterly failed to show anything.

Vorkosigan

faded_Glory

Douglas,

I think I understand where you're coming from: you will probably claim that including Di doesn't make a difference, because one can multiply both sides of the isochron equation with Di and get back the original two-isotope equation.

Mathematically you are correct. For a single measurement the equations are the same, but we are not using one single equation but a number of them simultaneously (from different samples) and they are correlated because they relate to a physical system.

When doing the analysis, a sample is measured for the amount of Dnow, Pnow and Di. The ratios Dnow/Di and Pnow/Di are plotted on a crossplot. This is done for a number of samples. If the resulting points line up, we can assume that we have a valid system. The slope of the line now gives us a measure of the age, and the intercept gives us the original amount of daughter isotope.

It is really best to look at Wiens' fig. 4. If there is original daughter material present, at the time of cooling (time zero) all samples will lie on a straight line with constant Dnow/Di (and Dnow = Dorg) but variable Pnow/Di. This is because Dnow and Di have the same chemical properties, but Pnow and Di do not.

As time proceeds, each sample will move on the crossplot. Those with a lot of Pnow will gain a lot of Dnow, but those with only little Pnow will only gain a little Dnow. As a consequence the line of points swings round the intercept (= Dorig/Di at T=0), and the angle of swing is proportional to the time lapsed.

Now consider an analysis without including Di. At time zero, a crossplot of Pnow vs. Dnow would show an essentially random cloud, unless there wasn't any D present at time zero - in which case all the points would fall on a straight line with D=0. In reality, there will be some D present (a valid criticism of the original 2 isotope method) and the points will not line up because chemically the two elements are behaving differently (there is no reason why the proportion P/D in different mineral grains would be constant). As time proceeds, each point will move on the plot in proportion with the amount of Porig. Therefore, the result at time=now would still not be a straight line and it would not be valid to use the slope of the line as a measure of the age of the samples.

If you look beyond the maths and think about the physics you will see that it does make a difference.

fG

Bill Snedden

Well, I wouldn't come to me first either; I'm definitely not a mathematician, though I have a layman's interest and I use statistical models extensively in my line of work (luckily, I don't have to derive the equations!).

At any rate, to be "nitpicky", I would point out that I didn't actually make any mathematical errors. It's one thing to state that something is wrong and another to state that something may be wrong. My statement included an implicit admission "upfront" that I was unsure of my conclusion; it was offered as tentative, not definitive (if you don't claim to be right, how can you be wrong?). I'm not surprised that my conjectures turned out to be unfounded.

Like I said, it's "nitpicky", but there it is.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Koyaanisqatsi

Congratulations, Douglas, you just proved my point in spades.

You completely avoided addressing any of the relevant (i.e., primary, or substantive elements) of my post in favor of sidetracking the discussion to focus on ancillary pointlessness.

You're a moron. I'm an idiot.

Only a child or someone with the ego of a child or someone interested in deliberately sidetracking the discussion away from the substantive would focus on either of those ancillary invectives and I mean that literally (aka, demonstratively), not as further invective.

If you take it that way, that's your problem, not mine, which is of course, the point.

No, I am saying:

It was to demonstrate that as adults we all know our own faults and foibles, thereby making an issue out of them (as we are now doing) is either the pointless result of a too fragile ego (in which case I would say grow thicker skin or don't post here) or a hack evasion tactic.

The greatest statesmen in our ignoble history regularly flavored their addresses and debates in Congress with invective, hyperbole, witticism and otherwise ancillary innuendoes as part and parcel to the debate. Nobody pulled focus away from the salient issues in the debate in order to focus upon it when it occurred, because they were all adults and actually appreciated the backhanded compliment.

It normally meant that the individual being "attacked" was considered tough enough to take it, intelligent enough to surpass it or sharp enough to serve it back up in kind.

I'm not suggesting anybody here is comparable to our founding fathers nor am I attempting to excuse someone who just states, "You're an idiot" for no reason, but the point should be clear; focusing upon whether or not someone did (or did not) say, "You're an idiot" for no reason or for good reason is a pointless waste of bandwidth.

If you don't like someone lobbing a barb your way, say so and move on or serve it up and slam-dunk. Focus on it as an issue in and of itself and rightly be accused of capitalizing upon it in order to engage in deliberate evasion, IMO.

F*ck off. I'm not here to baby-sit or coddle anybody's hurt feelings or "better myself" as a caring, compassionate, loving person. This isn't a town social, we're not children and the issues aren't about whether to put in a new stop sign at the corner of tenth and main.

I come here for intellectual stimulation, to engage in a passionate search for "the truth," and to (hopefully) awaken some of the sleepers out there who are poisoning the collective thinking well.

The theist mind set is a terminal cancer on the body politic, IMO, and it must be surgically removed as soon as is humanly possible or humanity will never grow.

It hasn't in over five thousand years now and the primary reason, IMO, is that theist mind set; a deliberately inflicted perversion of natural human attributes that turns otherwise healthy individual minds into the equivalent of heroin junkies from birth to grave.

Strike that. A more accurate (and subsequently more detrimental/terrifying) description would be that it turns otherwise vital and potentially beneficial leaders of kings and countries into unquestioning, compliant drones, easily programmed to think and behave however the StateChurch desires they think and behave.

Intellectual oppression; cognitive slaves.

Not overtly, of course, and obviously not in all cases, but certainly in most cases, which is why it is all the more detrimental. It happens as a whole over an entire lifetime, passed on from generation to generation so that entire family trees are trained and conditioned almost in vitro to self-limit for no beneficial reason.

It's my soapbox, I know, but it happens to be true in ways that too few people ever consider in their entire lifetimes, which adversely effects not just their own lives and the lives of those around them, but obviously my life and the lives of those around me as well, in exactly the same way it did to the Savage in Huxley's Brave New World or Danny, the Tunnel King from the movie The Great Escape.

We dig because we must get out.

Martin Luther did the exact same thing we are trying to do here when he (in his own warped way) broke from the evils of the catholic cult; he just didn't take his gestalt to its logical and necessary conclusion.

We are.

This has been a party political broadcast. Now back to our regular program...

I disagree. In the vast majority of cases I've witnessed (and been an active participant in) the invective is caused by the focus being pulled off of what is primary; that "we" get pissy because the primary arguments are being regularly and blatantly ignored and/or redirected so that they are never addressed.

Just as in this thread, it happens in just about every single thread of any substantive discussion I have ever participated in or lurked around.

An argument is posted, a counter-argument is presented and the invective usually starts only after the counter-arguments have been ignored or otherwise repeatedly redirected.

I would argue that you have seen it happen, are (apparently) fixated upon it or otherwise unduly sensitive to it (if not capitalizing upon it to sidetrack), and therefore have blown it out of proportion in order to make an ancillary argument of primary concern.

But then, I'm a crass, no holds barred realist, completely disinterested in the fragile egos of others .

Then they should be perfectly capable of defending themselves when they take the initiative to step into the ring, as it were.

Again, this isn't a town social with tea and biscuits. Some threads certainly are, but the one you were referring to decidedly was not.

Believe me, I've stuck my foot up my own ass several times in various threads I don't normally "haunt" and had my salad tossed, but the truth will out and no one's immune.

If you're tagged, you're tagged and that's it, so be a mensch about it and say, "You know what? I was being an idiot deserving of ridicule precisely because my argument was not as well conceived as I initially thought, so thanks for the clarity," and move on.

Yes, well, damn those materialists for sticking to only that, which can be demonstrated to be true! How horrible of them not to just pretend mystical, ineffable fairy god kings magically blinked everything into existence in order to punish it for not worshipping it like you do .

Such silly, logical, reasonable individuals who utilize their natural abilities to honestly seek out the truth!

Best brainwash them immediately so such examples of what can be done never infects your fellow drones, right? Otherwise, they might get the impression that they are free to think for themselves!

How horrible that would be.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

faded_Glory,


I have to thank you for your reserved and to-the-point last two posts - while I still believe there is error in ardipithecus' reasoning, I must say that it is not quite as "obvious" as I had thought. And conclusively determining the nature of the error has taken me a great deal more time than just the 10 minutes I mentioned (I called a few chemistry professors today [I hate chemistry], and wrote down some notes, just to be sure I wasn't mistaken - probably maybe an hour of time, total). So, in that respect, I was wrong (but I'll blame it on ardipithecus' [or, if the heart of his post was copy/pasted, the original author's] poor description of the equation and reasoning).

In any case, I'll just make my next post my explanation of what I understand to be the error in ardipithecus' reasoning, and we'll see what happens. I think that should essentially answer any questions you posed to me in your two posts.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

The Description of the Error:


Here is the final equation ardipithecus listed, the one from which he (implicitly) claims that the amount of D originally in the rock ("D[Orig]") can be determined (note that this claim, by itself, would contradict his statement that "...we can date the rock without knowledge of the original composition of the rock" - that statement is, I think, merely poorly worded, so I won't focus on that statement) (and note that I've had to change the subscript for "isotope" from "i" to "is"):
(where "(D/D[is])[Orig]" means the ratio of the radioactive daughter to the non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the daughter in the original rock [i.e., at the "moment" it formed]).

Now, from what I can gather (and this is where it is not as obvious as I had thought), (D/D[is])[Orig] essentially just means
(where "(D[is]:[Orig])" is just the original amount of D[is] in the rock). Assuming that this is correct, then that "Final Equation" can be rewritten as:
At this point, there are two unknowns in the equation: "t" and "D[Orig]".

Later in ardipithecus' post, he says:
Note that, as worded, this only means that it is assumed that for any particular rock sampled (let's say from a particular "lava flow") from a particular geographical location, the ratio of the elements D and D[is] in the rock at the time it formed would be the same throughout, and thus that for any rock sampled from that lava flow (from any rock formed from that flow at the same time), the ratio D/D[is] would be equal to some constant, "k" (that is, for a particular geographical location, rocks from that location would have (D/D[is])[Orig] = k).

The error lies here, from what I can tell. Ardipithecus appears to also assume (in addition to the assumption he gave as he worded it) that the ratio, (D/D[is])[Orig], would be homogeneous throughout ALL the Earth, throughout ALL time, and from speaking to a college chemistry professor (Goshen College) about this, it seems that this would be a very unlikely scenario. Without this assumption, the particular value of "k" would be unknown (and each sample, "S[j]", would have its own value for "k" [i.e., "k[j]"]).

For example, in the formation of some rock in, say, the area of Egypt thousands of years ago, perhaps there would have been a higher proportion of D[is] to D than, say, in the formation of some rock in Hawaii a few hundred years ago. On this point, I would grant that IF it was known, or there was strong reason to believe, that the ratio of a radioactive daughter element to the non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the daughter would always be the same, throughout all the Earth and throughout all time, then one could probably usually determine D[Orig]. However, it still would be possible to determine D[Orig] from this ONLY IF there actually were some traces of D[is] in the rock sample (if not, then ardipithecus' Final Equation would reflect the fact that one could not determine D[Orig], in that one would be dividing by zero).

Besides, if P decays into D, but D[is] does not decay, and there is no addition or loss of elements from or to the outside, then the ratio of D to D[is], for that rock sample, changes over time. Suppose a particular rock sample originally only had P, and no D or D[is]. Then over time, the rock sample would gain in D, but there would be no D[is] - why couldn't the same situation have occurred in the lava before the rock solidified (thus, maybe a small amount of D[is] in the lava initially, but an increasing amount of D, just prior to the rock solidifying, resulting in varying ratios of D to D[is] in various rocks)? (Of course, I am probably here just revealing my complete lack of knowledge of chemistry and geology.)


To summarize: Based on ardipithecus' wording of his "finally stated" assumption, there is no justification for setting (D/D[is])[Orig] to a constant, k, and assuming that one would know what k is (even though one could assume that for any given rock sample from a particular geographical location, each rock sample would have the same D/D[is] ratio as any other rock sample in that location). So, one could not use the equation,
to solve for D[Orig], since in this case, both k and D[Orig] would be unknowns (resulting in one equation in two unknowns). Thus, ardipithecus' Final Equation,
would have two unknowns: "t" and "D[Orig]" (where, by way of reminder, "(D/D[is])[Orig]" can be rewritten as "(D[Orig])/(D[is]:[Orig])"). Therefore, one could not solve for "t", since the Final Equation would be one equation in two unknowns.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>