radiometric dating

[RocksInMyHead]

You can always submit to a different conference, or do a full write-up and submit to a journal.

True enough. I have no idea why they never tried anywhere else unless they were actually just looking to be "martyrs" and proclaim that they're being censored.

You are correct that the bar is set very low for conferences. The fact that this abstract failed to meet that low bar says a lot.

Reading their abstract and assuming that it meets the submission guidelines, I can't really see anything objectively wrong with it. You could argue that using C-14 dating on dinosaur bones from a 100+ million year old formation is poor methodology, but the fact that they were able to get errors in the sub-1% range suggests that the data is legitimate. Subjectively, I disagree with their conclusions (they're probably not dating dinosaur tissue or there's been some contamination), but I could say that about a lot of research that still manages to make publication. Situations like this are a bit of a catch-22. Either you let them into the conference, granting them some measure of legitimacy and probably provoking quite a few angry arguments or you toss them out on some pretense, giving them fuel to claim persecution and censorship. Either way, they win.

 

[Loudmouth]

Reading their abstract and assuming that it meets the submission guidelines, I can't really see anything objectively wrong with it.

Using the wrong methodology to measure a sample is a rather large problem.

You could argue that using C-14 dating on dinosaur bones from a 100+ million year old formation is poor methodology, but the fact that they were able to get errors in the sub-1% range suggests that the data is legitimate.

Accurate measurements are not the same as meaningful data.

Subjectively, I disagree with their conclusions (they're probably not dating dinosaur tissue or there's been some contamination), but I could say that about a lot of research that still manages to make publication. Situations like this are a bit of a catch-22. Either you let them into the conference, granting them some measure of legitimacy and probably provoking quite a few angry arguments or you toss them out on some pretense, giving them fuel to claim persecution and censorship. Either way, they win.

It's a bit like someone flailing away at home base, missing the ball every time, and then proclaiming that there is a bias against them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Accurate measurements are not the same as meaningful data.

There is definitely such a thing as accurate, meaningless data, but you should also investigate any accurate data because something is happening to create that data. Perhaps these researchers aren't the best choice to do so because of their inherent bias, but I'm still pretty curious as to how they're getting accurate C-14 ages out of 100 million year old dinosaur bones.

 

[Aggie]

Accurate measurements are not the same as meaningful data.

I think this is a very interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that since we know a priori how old these bones are, any data suggesting a different age therefore must be invalid. And that this on its own is an adequate reason to reject the data, even if we can't find any specific flaw in their methodology. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think this is a very interesting perspective. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that since we know a priori how old these bones are, any data suggesting a different age therefore must be invalid. And that this on its own is an adequate reason to reject the data, even if we can't find any specific flaw in their methodology. Am I understanding you correctly?

We know ahead of time that those rocks are many millions of years old. The age of the Earth was known to be at the very least in the hundreds of millions of years before radiometric dating. Before radiometric dating we had only minimum ages based upon the relative age and estimates of the least amount of time for the various strata above it.

 

[dad]

We know ahead of time that those rocks are many millions of years old. ...

Cute. I guess the dating in imaginary years is something that comes after the fact of you already knowing they are millions of years old?

 

[Aggie]

We know ahead of time that those rocks are many millions of years old. The age of the Earth was known to be at the very least in the hundreds of millions of years before radiometric dating. Before radiometric dating we had only minimum ages based upon the relative age and estimates of the least amount of time for the various strata above it.

Is that a "yes", then? I'd like to have this question answered directly. I think you know I'm not a creationist, so if the answer is yes, I'm not going to use it to make the same point that dad is making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cute. I guess the dating in imaginary years is something that comes after the fact of you already knowing they are millions of years old?

Why do you think these numbers are imaginary? They are based upon reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that a "yes", then? I'd like to have this question answered directly. I think you know I'm not a creationist, so if the answer is yes, I'm not going to use it to make the same point that dad is making.

We don't know exactly how old that they are, but scientists can easily calculate a minimum age that puts it far behind and C14 dates. The rates of sedimentary deposition can be measured for different environments. That along with the minimum ages for the various strata is what makes the claim of C14 dates laughable.

All methods of radiometric dating have flaws. If one is not aware of those flaws one can get fooled by false dates.

And false dates can make a piece look either younger or older than it actually is.

 

[Aggie]

We don't know exactly how old that they are, but scientists can easily calculate a minimum age that puts it far behind and C14 dates. The rates of sedimentary deposition can be measured for different environments. That along with the minimum ages for the various strata is what makes the claim of C14 dates laughable.

All methods of radiometric dating have flaws. If one is not aware of those flaws one can get fooled by false dates.

And false dates can make a piece look either younger or older than it actually is.

You still aren't directly answering what I asked. I asked, do you consider this a valid reason to reject data that produces a younger age, even if we can't find any specific flaw in the methodology that produced it? It seems that you're saying the answer is yes, but I'd prefer if you didn't beat around the bush about it.

 

[dad]

Why do you think these numbers are imaginary? They are based upon reality.

The ages are imaginary because they are derived from a belief that is not proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still aren't directly answering what I asked. I asked, do you consider this a valid reason to reject data that produces a younger age, even if we can't find any specific flaw in the methodology that produced it? It seems that you're saying the answer is yes, but I'd prefer if you didn't beat around the bush about it.

I thought that I did answer your question clearly. A mere yes or no will not do for a response in many situations. But, yes, since we know from multiple sources that the strata are far too old to use C14 on it was a valid reason to reject their work. Just as small amount of contamination of C14 will give a false young age for those strata. What is more reasonable, that countless sources of evidence that show that the strata are old, or that one test, on the edge of datability and where the least bit of contamination will give a false age, is right?

When you find an idea that goes counter to the current paradigm ones work has to be above reproach. I do not think these people came even close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ages are imaginary because they are derived from a belief that is not proven.

What are you talking about? Science never uses "proof". And yet it works amazingly well. These ages are supported by scientific evidence. You beliefs are neither scientific or even biblical. No on is going to believe you from either end of the spectrum.

 

[Aggie]

When you find an idea that goes counter to the current paradigm ones work has to be above reproach.

All right, thanks for being honest about this.

The reason I'm asking is because it's common for supporters of evolution to claim that the only thing it would take to overturn the theory of evolution is a single piece of data that can't fit within the current paradigm. For example, Bill Nye made this argument during his debate with Ken Ham. But I've suspected for a long time that this argument is based on an overly idealistic view of how science actually works. When data can't fit within the current paradigm, the most instinctive response usually is to reject it.

This instinct is useful to prevent a well-established theory from being overturned by a measurement error, but it can be a problem when the current paradigm is wrong. This article discusses how when the data demonstrating plate tectonics was first documented around the beginning of the 20th century, it was met with the same response. When it was first proposed that the continents could move, even though there was a substantial amount of data to support this idea, mainstream geology regarded it as pseudoscience for about fifty years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All right, thanks for being honest about this.

The reason I'm asking is because it's common for supporters of evolution to claim that the only thing it would take to overturn the theory of evolution is a single piece of data that can't fit within the current paradigm. For example, Bill Nye made this argument during his debate with Ken Ham. But I've suspected for a long time that this argument is based on an overly idealistic view of how science actually works. When data can't fit within the current paradigm, the most instinctive response usually is to reject it.

This instinct is useful to prevent a well-established theory from being overturned by a measurement error, but it can be a problem when the current paradigm is wrong. This article discusses how when the data demonstrating plate tectonics was first documented around the beginning of the 20th century, it was met with the same response. When it was first proposed that the continents could move, even though there was a substantial amount of data to support this idea, mainstream geology regarded it as pseudoscience for about fifty years.

Wrong, you are over simplifying. Data is never rejected out of hand. In this case one would consider the amazing amounts of evidence against a test that can easily be done incorrectly.

If the evidence was actually strongly supported it would raise huge red flags about our understanding. I can assure you that this is not the case. Once again none of their work has been published in a respected peer review journal, before or since. Peer review allows others to check your work. Complaining about work where the authors seemed to be to afraid of peer review is highly suspicious.

 

[Aggie]

Wrong, you are over simplifying. Data is never rejected out of hand. In this case one would consider the amazing amounts of evidence against a test that can easily be done incorrectly.

If the evidence was actually strongly supported it would raise huge red flags about our understanding. I can assure you that this is not the case. Once again none of their work has been published in a respected peer review journal, before or since. Peer review allows others to check your work. Complaining about work where the authors seemed to be to afraid of peer review is highly suspicious.

Earlier in this thread, we just finished establishing that the conference that rejected their data did reject it "out of hand". That is, they rejected it because it went against the consensus that had been established by earlier data, not because they found any problem with the methodology. Conference presentations like this one are never peer reviewed, so that clearly wasn't the reason either, and bringing it up as an explanation is a red herring.

I thought you'd accepted this; making sure of that was why I was requesting a clear answer to the question I asked earlier. Why is this so difficult to accept that you have to backpedal about it now? It isn't a criticism of evolution; it's just part of how science operates in the real world. I could provide examples of the same principle from many different fields that have nothing to do with evolution, and already provided one (plate tectonics).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Earlier in this thread, we just finished establishing that the conference that rejected their data did reject it "out of hand". That is, they rejected it because it went against the consensus that had been established by earlier data, not because they found any problem with the methodology. Conference presentations like this one are never peer reviewed, so that clearly wasn't the reason either, and bringing it up as an explanation is a red herring.

I thought you'd accepted this; making sure of that was why I was requesting a clear answer to the question I asked earlier. Why is this so difficult to accept that you have to backpedal about it now? It isn't a criticism of evolution; it's just part of how science operates in the real world. I could provide examples of the same principle from many different fields that have nothing to do with evolution, and already provided one (plate tectonics).

That is not dismissing it out of hand. If someone claimed that he had evidence that elephants can fly at an aerodynamics lecture they would probably be kicked out too. That does not mean that they were rejected "out of hand".

What did you not understand about the explanation that you were given?

 

[Aggie]

That is not dismissing it out of hand. If someone claimed that he had evidence that elephants can fly at an aerodynamics lecture they would probably be kicked out too. That does not mean that they were rejected "out of hand".

What did you not understand about the explanation that you were given?

I understand it perfectly well. Really, I find it interesting how defensive you're being about this.

My original purpose for joining this forum was to debate with creationists, but in the past few years I've begun to be more bothered by the arguments used by this forum's supporters of evolution, and this thread is a good example. The argument you're making would apply equally well to rejecting a legitimate new theory, but you seem unwilling to recognize that. The attitude you're displaying here, and the fact that it's so prevalent in the sciences, is the main reason why plate tectonics wasn't accepted until about fifty years later than it should have been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it perfectly well. Really, I find it interesting how defensive you're being about this.

My original purpose for joining this forum was to debate with creationists, but in the past few years I've begun to be more bothered by the arguments used by this forum's supporters of evolution, and this thread is a good example. The argument you're making would apply equally well to rejecting a legitimate new theory, but you seem unwilling to recognize that. The attitude you're displaying here, and the fact that it's so prevalent in the sciences, is the main reason why plate tectonics wasn't accepted until about fifty years later than it should have been.

What do you mean by "defensive"? I explained why they had more than adequate reasons to get rid of a few kooks. It seems that you have not understood one of my posts here.

And no, this would not apply to rejecting a legitimate new theory. You seem to forget that science is a very open process where others get to check your work. These people were not honest and they were not open in what they were going to present. If one wants to create a new theory having others verify your work is part of the process. One person or group by themselves can develop a new hypothesis at best. Until others test it and see if it is correct it is not a theory.

 

[Aggie]

And no, this would not apply to rejecting a legitimate new theory. You seem to forget that science is a very open process where others get to check your work. These people were not honest and they were not open in what they were going to present. If one wants to create a new theory having others verify your work is part of the process. One person or group by themselves can develop a new hypothesis at best. Until others test it and see if it is correct it is not a theory.

This is what was addressed earlier in the thread. Please re-read the posts from RocksInMyHead.

To be completely fair, the publication that was rejected was a conference abstract. You generally don't get to make revisions or re-submit an abstract if it gets rejected, and getting rejected from a conference in the first place is really rare as long as you follow the submission guidelines. I've seen some pretty nutso posters at conferences.

So yeah, this is definitely an instance of censorship. I can understand why they did it - allowing them into the conference would lend legitimacy to creationism, and given the current socio-political climate, it could potentially set back science education in the US significantly - but I don't necessarily agree that it should have been done. They have data that appears to be reasonably precise and legitimately obtained (unlike other examples of creationist radiometric dating). The real question is what they were actually dating.

Reading their abstract and assuming that it meets the submission guidelines, I can't really see anything objectively wrong with it. You could argue that using C-14 dating on dinosaur bones from a 100+ million year old formation is poor methodology, but the fact that they were able to get errors in the sub-1% range suggests that the data is legitimate. Subjectively, I disagree with their conclusions (they're probably not dating dinosaur tissue or there's been some contamination), but I could say that about a lot of research that still manages to make publication. Situations like this are a bit of a catch-22. Either you let them into the conference, granting them some measure of legitimacy and probably provoking quite a few angry arguments or you toss them out on some pretense, giving them fuel to claim persecution and censorship. Either way, they win.

Your response to this was that they used the wrong methodology: that C-14 shouldn't be used to date dinosaur bones, because their pre-established age is too old for us to expect to find any C-14 in them. In other words, using C-14 to test the age of dinosaur bones is a problem is because expecting to get results with that method is incompatible with the current paradigm. Later, you acknowledged yourself that it was valid to reject results for this reason. Now you're backpedaling, and that's what I'm having trouble understanding.

I think I need to wait for someone else to try to explain this. It's very clear to me what the issue here is, and I think it also will be to most other people reading the thread.