Andrew: <<There is a great deal of data that conforms to a high degree with one's expectations. >>
I would say that there is a great deal of expectations that conformed to the data collected.
Andrew: <<There is a great deal of data one can easily duplicate, given the will. Such data, we have confidence is reliable. A paper on the consistency of several dating methods in a particular example is not one of those data sets.>>
And why not ? Because you do not like the implications it has ?
Andrew: <<You're telling me that I should trust the data of the given paper. Why?>>
Because 1) you have no evidence that the data should not be trusted 2) I have shown how dozens of researchers found the same results/
Andrew: <<Given the hostility of Evolutionists do anti-Evolutionary data and proponents, I would be shocked for any scientist-in-good-standing to dare publish data that wasn't consistent, not unless he had some acceptable hypothesis to explain the apparent inconsistency.>>
Nice strawman. But your own 'feelings' do not mean much. Again you apply wrong doings and 'cover ups' where no evidence of such exists. Otherwise creationists like Morris would have focused on such.
Andrew: <<Robert Gentry, in his book on Po halos, documents that he has had work rejected for publication for the specific reason that it wasn't consistent with established views. Forrest Mims, Dean Kenyon, etc. (even Burdick) found that there are severe consequences for playing the role of Galileo (contradicting the established "scientific" views). >>
So he claims. And yet this has little relevance for the data I showed. Gentry had some interesting hypotheses which since then have been shown to be without too much merrit. Was he not published because of the controversy or because there was no controversy anymore ?
> See table 5.5 of the same book more dozens of people tested the
> moon rocks for instance. Or table 4.1
Andrew: <<Extremely inconsistent dates have been published for moon rocks, and I haven't seen any good explanation for how those moon rocks formed in the first place. That is why I suggest the blind testing of rocks of known age (e.g. K-Ar with recent volcanic rock).>>
THe moon rock dates are hardly inconsistent. Of course the age of the various rocks does vary due to the differences in origins of collection of such rocks.I'd suggest you read Dalrymple's book on this. And even if the dates vary, none of them fall in the range young earthers would like them to be
76535
Sm-Nd 4.26+/1 0.06 Lungmair et al
Rb-Sr 4.51+/- 0.07 Papanastatssiou and Wasserburg
K-Ar 4.27 +/- 0.08 Bogard et al
Ar-Ar 4.16+/- 0.04 Huneke and Wasserburg
Ar-Ar 4.19+/- 0.02 Huneke and Schaefer
Ar-Ar 4.20+/- 0.03 Huneke and Schaefer
Ar-Ar 4.19+/-0.02 Huneke and Schaefer
77215
Sm-Nd 4.37+/-0.07
Rb-Sr 4.33+/-0.04
Ar-Ar 3.92+/-0.03
Ar-Ar 3.99+/-0.03
Ar-Ar 3.97+/-0.03
Ar-Ar 3.90+/-0.03
10062
Ar-AR 3.78+/-0.06 Turner
Ar-Ar 3.79+/-0.04 Guggisberg
Sm-Nd 3.88+/-0.06 Papanastassio et al
Rb-Sr 3.92+/-0.011 Papanastassio et al
So what where you saying again ?
> Well, you get the idea. No wonder that some are getting so
> desperate as to consider these people dishonest. Thank you Andrew
> for giving us a remarkable insight in thought and logic.
Andrew:: <<Thank you for what you revealing your attitude toward skeptics.>>
Skepticism is ok. But suggesting that the researchers are somehow blinded by their own beliefs despite lack of evidence of such, suggest to me that it was not skepticism on your part.