On Feb 17, 7:35 pm, charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lou Newell wrote:
> > as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
> dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
If you find a fossilized bone that carbon dating provides a range
for its age of 100 to 150 million years old, you've made some
serious mistakes as:
1) Carbon dating isn't useful for objects that old.
2) 100 to 150 My old fossil bones generally do not contain
carbon. (There have been exceptions)
--
FF
On Feb 18, 7:07 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:27 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > One can of course assume that the universe was created three seconds
> > ago with me sitting in front of my computer with this sentence half
> > typed. The trouble with that kind of assumption is that it's
> > intellectual masturbation--there's no way to prove it or disprove it
> > and the evidence is that if the universe is not exceedingly old then
> > somebody with a truly awe inspiring amount of physical power has made
> > strenuous efforts to make it appear so.
>
> And why would they/he/she bother?
People talk about a vengeful god, why not a practical joker? "Hehe,
is _this_ going to confuse the poop out of those monkeys. Just
watch!"
R
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when
>> measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact
>> that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements
>> conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control
>> sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting
>> ones
>> desires drive what they think the data is.
>>
>
> C-14 dating relies on an isotope whose half-life is only a couple
> thousand years. In order to date anything older - such as dinosaur
> bones - the fossil is dated in context. If the strata in which the
> fossil is located dates to 65 million years, then rational people
> conclude the fossil dates to that epoch. Radiometric dating methods
> rely on isotopes whose half-lives are significantly longer. Because of
> the slow decay of these isotopes, we can date rocks as old as the
> earth - 4.5 billion years old to the surprise of some - if we had any
> rocks as old as the earth.
>
> Jeff
>
;!) I understand the theory of carbon dating but you cannot prove that it
is accurate. Somewhere along the line there could be a tiny mistake in a
calculation that will not show up for another 4.5 billion years. Until then
IMHO it is a wild guess that could be wildly inaccurate. If it were
accurate why is it that the fossil does not age. It was discovered 50 years
ago and is the same age today as it was then. Should it not be
4,500,000,050 years old now?
If there was confidence in the accuracy it would be given a creation date
and the age could be determined on any given day. 4.5 billion years is
extremely vague and is probably inaccurate. Perhaps the fossil is only 4.3
billion years old, that would throw carbon dating off by 100,000,000 years.
That does not sound accurate.
And while I am on this soap box, every so many years the time is changed
because the earth is slowing down. Years are measured by the time it takes
for the earth to revolve around the sun. 4.5 billion years ago, did the
earth revolve around the sun at the same speed? ;~) What if the earth only
took 364 days to complete a revolution 4.5 billion years ago. How far off
would that throw the dating calculations off?
The other day my wife and I were looking through a telescope and we both
spied a younger woman, my wife quickly pointed out that the other woman was
1.5 billion Light Years Away.
In article <[email protected]>,
Lou Newell <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>> I found this interesting and thought I'd post it here since the group
>> is geographically diverse and known to offer varying insights. If
>> anybody has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them:
>>
>>
>http://consumerist.com/357220/study-says-payday-lenders-more-prevalent-in-areas-of-high-christian-conservative-power
>>
>as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
Figures don't lie???
what about a figure involving one or more of:
a corset
a girdle
a push-up bra
a bustier
a Merry Widow
<grin>
charlieb wrote:
> Lou Newell wrote:
>
>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
>
> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
> dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
> and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined
> by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of
> bones,
> it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the
> fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000
> years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the
> planet,
> in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you
> believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it -
> that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
> Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the
> available data.
>
> charlie b
or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when
measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact
that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements
conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control
sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting ones
desires drive what they think the data is.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>,
charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lou Newell wrote:
>
>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
>
> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
> dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
> and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined
> by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of
>bones,
> it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the
> fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000
> years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the
>planet,
> in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you
> believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it -
> that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
> Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the
> available data.
>
> charlie b
<devils' advocate>
How about the 'simplifying assumption' that the planet in question _was_
created "Seven Days" (or any _other_ arbitrary period) ago, _including_
'internal evidence' of say, 2.3 billion years of existence?` All the
available data =is= as consistent with _that_ hypothesis, as it is with
any 'scientific' hypothesis.
Inferences drawn from data are just that.
If you can't construct *many* test cases to very that things _will_ happen
as claimed, *whatever* one postulates to be the 'truth' is nothing more than
an opinion.
That said, _not_ all opinions are of equal 'worth' or 'value'. One that allows
one to accurately predict future events is more valuable that one that asserts,
in effect, that 'prediction is futile'. Something that says "things were
constructed 'by design' so that they always follow the observed patterns"
is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT TO one that simply says 'things always follow
these observed patterns."
</devil>
On Feb 18, 10:32 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> ;!) I understand the theory of carbon dating but you cannot prove that it
> is accurate. Somewhere along the line there could be a tiny mistake in a
> calculation that will not show up for another 4.5 billion years. Until then
> IMHO it is a wild guess that could be wildly inaccurate. If it were
> accurate why is it that the fossil does not age. It was discovered 50 years
> ago and is the same age today as it was then. Should it not be
> 4,500,000,050 years old now?
Clearly you do NOT understand carbon dating, and in fact do not
even understand the concept of accuracy.
Accuracy is not a binary function.
> ...
> And while I am on this soap box, every so many years the time is changed
> because the earth is slowing down. Years are measured by the time it takes
> for the earth to revolve around the sun.
Clearly you also do not understand how time is defined.
> The other day my wife and I were looking through a telescope and we both
> spied a younger woman, my wife quickly pointed out that the other woman was
> 1.5 billion Light Years Away.
But even more clearly, you DO understand women.
That puts you way ahead of 99% of the men on this
planet.
OK, I see you were spoofing. Good Job! You got me.
--
FF
On Feb 18, 10:32 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when
> >> measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact
> >> that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements
> >> conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control
> >> sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting
> >> ones
> >> desires drive what they think the data is.
>
> > C-14 dating relies on an isotope whose half-life is only a couple
> > thousand years. In order to date anything older - such as dinosaur
> > bones - the fossil is dated in context. If the strata in which the
> > fossil is located dates to 65 million years, then rational people
> > conclude the fossil dates to that epoch. Radiometric dating methods
> > rely on isotopes whose half-lives are significantly longer. Because of
> > the slow decay of these isotopes, we can date rocks as old as the
> > earth - 4.5 billion years old to the surprise of some - if we had any
> > rocks as old as the earth.
>
> > Jeff
>
> ;!) I understand the theory of carbon dating but you cannot prove that it
> is accurate. Somewhere along the line there could be a tiny mistake in a
> calculation that will not show up for another 4.5 billion years. Until then
> IMHO it is a wild guess that could be wildly inaccurate. If it were
> accurate why is it that the fossil does not age. It was discovered 50 years
> ago and is the same age today as it was then. Should it not be
> 4,500,000,050 years old now?
> If there was confidence in the accuracy it would be given a creation date
> and the age could be determined on any given day. 4.5 billion years is
> extremely vague and is probably inaccurate. Perhaps the fossil is only 4.3
> billion years old, that would throw carbon dating off by 100,000,000 years.
> That does not sound accurate.
> And while I am on this soap box, every so many years the time is changed
> because the earth is slowing down. Years are measured by the time it takes
> for the earth to revolve around the sun. 4.5 billion years ago, did the
> earth revolve around the sun at the same speed? ;~) What if the earth only
> took 364 days to complete a revolution 4.5 billion years ago. How far off
> would that throw the dating calculations off?
> The other day my wife and I were looking through a telescope and we both
> spied a younger woman, my wife quickly pointed out that the other woman was
> 1.5 billion Light Years Away.
The math is in this wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating
Specifically, what are your problems with it?
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
*snip*
>
> Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
>
> jc
>
FYI, I often see that quote attributed to Mark Twain. (Sometimes I forget
the exact quote and who said it so I can't look it up.)
Puckdropper
Lou Newell wrote:
> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined
by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of
bones,
it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the
fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000
years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the
planet,
in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you
believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it -
that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the
available data.
charlie b
Jeff wrote:
> I found this interesting and thought I'd post it here since the group
> is geographically diverse and known to offer varying insights. If
> anybody has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them:
>
> http://consumerist.com/357220/study-says-payday-lenders-more-prevalent-in-areas-of-high-christian-conservative-power
>
as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
"Leon" wrote
> The other day my wife and I were looking through a telescope and we both
> spied a younger woman, my wife quickly pointed out that the other woman
was
> 1.5 billion Light Years Away.
ROTFL ... then again, there are something's that can be calculated precisely
... like the force of that hand slapping you upside the head.
F=MA
;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lou Newell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
>> I found this interesting and thought I'd post it here since the group
>> is geographically diverse and known to offer varying insights. If
>> anybody has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them:
>>
>> http://consumerist.com/357220/study-says-payday-lenders-more-prevalent-in-areas-of-high-christian-conservative-power
>>
> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
Figures don't lie????
In my finance days, they'd ask us what the answer was, we'd ask them what
they want/need it to be. And we used to same set of figures to get to any
of the above answers.
Figures *only* lie
Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
jc
On Feb 18, 12:24 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just Curious wrote:
> >...
> >
> > Your argument itself confuses data with conclusions. The data is
> > that
> > carbon-14 is X percent of the object's carbon content. An age range
> > isn't data, it's a conclusion drawn from that data. The conclusion
> > is
> > based on certain assumptions. If those assumptions are faulty, so
> > is
> > the conclusion. (I'm not arguing for any particular conclusion,
> > just
> > pointing out the fallacy of the argument you are making to support
> > your
> > point.)
>
> The conclusion is based on certain other experiments which reveal the
> half-life of carbon-14. The only assumption is that that rate has
> remained constant.
>
Oh no, there ARE several others including:
1) the object being tested was not contaminated with more
recent, or older carbon.
2) the ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere has remained
constant (which it has not --the observed change in the 20th
century is some of the strongest evidence that the rise
in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is anthropogenic,
DAGS "Suess effect"). It also varies with variations in cosmic
ray flux.
3) That C14 was not preferentially incorporated into the object
vs C12, or vice versa.
Those are only assumptions until they are tested. If validated,
they become conclusions. In some cases other studies permit
calibrations to compensate for the inaccuracy of the assumption.
For instance, measuring the C14/C12 ration in tree rings allows
a calibration to compensate for '2', above.
--
FF
On Feb 16, 9:37 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> I found this interesting and thought I'd post it here since the group
> is geographically diverse and known to offer varying insights. If
> anybody has some thoughts, I'd love to hear them:
>
> http://consumerist.com/357220/study-says-payday-lenders-more-prevalen...
Opinion is like flatulence. Everybody has it, and everybody thinks
that everyone else's stinks.
IMHO the principle object of the recent much ballyhooed 'reform'
of personal bankruptcy law was designed to steer people into the
arms of predatory mortgage lenders by way of the mandatory
'credit counseling'. Thus person who might have declared bankruptcy
and kept their homes, instead declared bankruptcy a year or so
later and lost their homes.
It is particularly ironic that corporate bankruptcy was NOT 'reformed'
thus allowing the management of Untied Airlines bankrupt the
company and then use that bankruptcy as an excuse to
break their contract and welch on their obligation to their
pensioners,. Now, as a reward for that mismanagement,
they have a big economic advantage over the better managed
airlines.
Had UA been dissolved, the other, better managed airlines
would have picked up their business, (we call this 'capitalism')
and would have likely hired on most of UA's displaced
employees. You and I would still be paying off their pensioners,
but UA would not have been rewarded for bad business
practices, and the better airlines not disadvantaged for
good business practices.
--
FF
On Feb 18, 12:27 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lou Newell wrote:
>
> >>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
> >> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> >> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that
> >> carbon dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million
> >> years old, and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have
> >> been determined by other methods and have a similar age, and are
> >> similar types of bones,
> >> it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which
> >> the fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only
> >> 7,000 years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe
> >> that
> >> the planet,
> >> in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document
> >> you
> >> believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support
> >> it
> >> - that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book
> >> 's/ Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith,
> >> not the available data.
>
> >> charlie b
>
> > <devils' advocate>
>
> > How about the 'simplifying assumption' that the planet in question
> > _was_ created "Seven Days" (or any _other_ arbitrary period) ago,
> > _including_ 'internal evidence' of say, 2.3 billion years of
> > existence?` All the available data =is= as consistent with _that_
> > hypothesis, as it is with
> > any 'scientific' hypothesis.
>
> > Inferences drawn from data are just that.
>
> > If you can't construct *many* test cases to very that things _will_
> > happen
> > as claimed, *whatever* one postulates to be the 'truth' is nothing
> > more than an opinion.
>
> > That said, _not_ all opinions are of equal 'worth' or 'value'. One
> > that allows one to accurately predict future events is more valuable
> > that one that asserts, in effect, that 'prediction is futile'.
> > Something that says "things were constructed 'by design' so that
> > they
> > always follow the observed patterns"
> > is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT TO one that simply says 'things always
> > follow
> > these observed patterns."
>
> > </devil>
>
> One can of course assume that the universe was created three seconds
> ago with me sitting in front of my computer with this sentence half
> typed. The trouble with that kind of assumption is that it's
> intellectual masturbation--there's no way to prove it or disprove it
> and the evidence is that if the universe is not exceedingly old then
> somebody with a truly awe inspiring amount of physical power has made
> strenuous efforts to make it appear so.
>
And why would they/he/she bother?
On Feb 17, 8:11 pm, tough guy or gal Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> charlieb wrote:
> ...
> or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when
> measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact
> that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements
> conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control
> sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting ones
> desires drive what they think the data is.
>
Or, using your example, if one observes that the method fails due
to confounding factors (typically contamination) in some cases
and from that reach the conclusion that the method is, in general,
invalid then one is letting one's desires drive their conclusions.
--
FF
On Feb 17, 8:11 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> charlieb wrote:
> > Lou Newell wrote:
>
> >> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
> > The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> > is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
> > dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
> > and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined
> > by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of
> > bones,
> > it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the
> > fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000
> > years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the
> > planet,
> > in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you
> > believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it -
> > that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
> > Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the
> > available data.
>
> > charlie b
>
> or, using your example, if one takes carbon dating to be accurate when
> measuring time periods on the order of millions of years despite the fact
> that it has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable for measurements
> conducted on items for which a known date can be used (i.e. a control
> sample with an unrelated measurement methodology), then one is letting ones
> desires drive what they think the data is.
>
C-14 dating relies on an isotope whose half-life is only a couple
thousand years. In order to date anything older - such as dinosaur
bones - the fossil is dated in context. If the strata in which the
fossil is located dates to 65 million years, then rational people
conclude the fossil dates to that epoch. Radiometric dating methods
rely on isotopes whose half-lives are significantly longer. Because of
the slow decay of these isotopes, we can date rocks as old as the
earth - 4.5 billion years old to the surprise of some - if we had any
rocks as old as the earth.
Jeff
Puckdropper wrote:
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> *snip*
>
>
>>Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
>>
>>jc
>>
>
>
> FYI, I often see that quote attributed to Mark Twain. (Sometimes I forget
> the exact quote and who said it so I can't look it up.)
>
> Puckdropper
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Puckdropper wrote:
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> *snip*
>
>> Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
>>
>> jc
>>
>
> FYI, I often see that quote attributed to Mark Twain. (Sometimes I forget
> the exact quote and who said it so I can't look it up.)
>
> Puckdropper
I think it was Winston Churchill.
--
Tanus
www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> charlieb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lou Newell wrote:
>>
>>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>>
>>
>> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
>> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that
>> carbon dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million
>> years old, and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have
>> been determined by other methods and have a similar age, and are
>> similar types of bones,
>> it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which
>> the fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only
>> 7,000 years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe
>> that
>> the planet,
>> in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document
>> you
>> believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support
>> it
>> - that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book
>> 's/ Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith,
>> not the available data.
>>
>> charlie b
>
> <devils' advocate>
>
> How about the 'simplifying assumption' that the planet in question
> _was_ created "Seven Days" (or any _other_ arbitrary period) ago,
> _including_ 'internal evidence' of say, 2.3 billion years of
> existence?` All the available data =is= as consistent with _that_
> hypothesis, as it is with
> any 'scientific' hypothesis.
>
> Inferences drawn from data are just that.
>
> If you can't construct *many* test cases to very that things _will_
> happen
> as claimed, *whatever* one postulates to be the 'truth' is nothing
> more than an opinion.
>
> That said, _not_ all opinions are of equal 'worth' or 'value'. One
> that allows one to accurately predict future events is more valuable
> that one that asserts, in effect, that 'prediction is futile'.
> Something that says "things were constructed 'by design' so that
> they
> always follow the observed patterns"
> is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT TO one that simply says 'things always
> follow
> these observed patterns."
>
> </devil>
One can of course assume that the universe was created three seconds
ago with me sitting in front of my computer with this sentence half
typed. The trouble with that kind of assumption is that it's
intellectual masturbation--there's no way to prove it or disprove it
and the evidence is that if the universe is not exceedingly old then
somebody with a truly awe inspiring amount of physical power has made
strenuous efforts to make it appear so.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just Curious wrote:
> charlieb wrote:
>> Lou Newell wrote:
>>
>>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>>
>>
>> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
>> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that
>> carbon dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million
>> years old, and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have
>> been determined by other methods and have a similar age, and are
>> similar types of bones, it's reasonable and logical to conclude
>> that the planet on which the fossils were found - is probably
>> NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000 years old. If, despite the
>> data, you choose to believe that the planet,in this case Earth,
>> is only 7,000 years old because a document you believe is true
>> "says" - with out any emperical data to support it - that the
>> fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
>> Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not
>> the available data.
>>
>
> Your argument itself confuses data with conclusions. The data is
> that
> carbon-14 is X percent of the object's carbon content. An age range
> isn't data, it's a conclusion drawn from that data. The conclusion
> is
> based on certain assumptions. If those assumptions are faulty, so
> is
> the conclusion. (I'm not arguing for any particular conclusion,
> just
> pointing out the fallacy of the argument you are making to support
> your
> point.)
The conclusion is based on certain other experiments which reveal the
half-life of carbon-14. The only assumption is that that rate has
remained constant.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
charlieb wrote:
> Lou Newell wrote:
>
>> as my dad used to say "Figures don't lie but liars sure figure"
>
>
> The data is the data. What conclusions are drawn from that data
> is where it can get messy. If you find a fossilized bone that carbon
> dating provides a range for its age of 100 to 150 million years old,
> and there are similar fossilized bones who's age have been determined
> by other methods and have a similar age, and are similar types of
> bones, it's reasonable and logical to conclude that the planet on which the
> fossils were found - is probably NOT Seven Days old, NOR only 7,000
> years old. If, despite the data, you choose to believe that the
> planet,in this case Earth, is only 7,000 years old because a document you
> believe is true "says" - with out any emperical data to support it -
> that the fossilized data is wrong - then you're taking The Book 's/
> Document's version of how old the earth is stricly on faith, not the
> available data.
>
Your argument itself confuses data with conclusions. The data is that
carbon-14 is X percent of the object's carbon content. An age range
isn't data, it's a conclusion drawn from that data. The conclusion is
based on certain assumptions. If those assumptions are faulty, so is
the conclusion. (I'm not arguing for any particular conclusion, just
pointing out the fallacy of the argument you are making to support your
point.)
Tanus wrote:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>> *snip*
>>
>>> Or said another way, 3 type of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics.
>>>
>>> jc
>>>
>>
>> FYI, I often see that quote attributed to Mark Twain. (Sometimes I
>> forget the exact quote and who said it so I can't look it up.)
>>
>> Puckdropper
>
> I think it was Winston Churchill.
It's widely credited to Benjamin Disraeli, before Churhill was born.
Mark Twain popularized the phrase in the US, but was not the originator.
It may have been around before Disraeli, but the accreditations aren't
verifiable.