Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[The Cadet]

Also, young earth creationists are not saying merely that radiometric dating methods are flawed; they are saying that the earth is nearly a million times younger than the age obtained from scientific measurements. Do you think that this is credible, that not only radiometric dating but all methods of measuring the age of rocks could be so inaccurate?

And that ice cores are not reliable; and that trees somehow survived the flood; and and and and...

 

[lifepsyop]

I own geology books going back to the 1930s (nearly 80 years ago, not merely 'a couple of decades', which would take us to the 1990s) that include geological time-scales based on radiometric dating. Although these time-scales were inaccurate by today's standards, they agreed that the Palaeozoic geological periods were hundreds of millions of years old, that the Cambrian period began 500-600 million years ago, and that the earth was thousands of millions of years old. During the 1950s, Clair Patterson showed that the earth was 4550±50 million years old, and this age has stood for more than 60 years. Would geologists have obtained this agreement if their methodology was hopelessly flawed?

Probably, yes. When a deep-time model becomes well favored, it will be very difficult if not impossible to disprove. This is because if a dating method contradicts that model then it will be discarded as something nature must have done to interfere with the 'clock'.

 

[The Cadet]

Probably, yes.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the method doesn't work, why would it produce consistent results? You once again just claim that things that disagree are discarded without reason, but at this point I'm getting sick of asking "cite please".

 

[lifepsyop]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the method doesn't work, why would it produce consistent results?

Because methods that produce results inconsistent with a favored deep-time model are considered unreliable dating methods.

A great example of this is dinosaur soft tissues. Up until very recently, it was widely accepted by the scientific community that there were strict upper time limits for the preservation of organic material in animal remains.. Soft tissues were expected to decay in a couple hundred thousand years at most, maybe a couple million years in the case of miraculous preservation. This is why deep-time believers have admitted being so shocked by these discoveries. It completely goes against their deep-time expectations.

Since original soft tissues are now being repeatedly discovered in dinosaur remains, this taphonomic method which was always accepted as a reliable upper time limit indicator is now being casually dismissed in order to maintain the evolutionary faith.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Because methods that produce results inconsistent with a favored deep-time model are considered unreliable dating methods.

A great example of this is dinosaur soft tissues. Up until very recently, it was widely accepted by the scientific community that there were strict upper time limits for the preservation of organic material in animal remains.. Soft tissues were expected to decay in a couple hundred thousand years at most, maybe a couple million years in the case of miraculous preservation. This is why deep-time believers have admitted being so shocked by these discoveries. It completely goes against their deep-time expectations.

Since original soft tissues are now being repeatedly discovered in dinosaur remains, this taphonomic method which was always accepted as a reliable upper time limit indicator is now being casually dismissed in order to maintain the evolutionary faith.

The previous understanding of how long soft tissue could survive was based on samples sitting in a fridge. But how does mineralization affect this? When soft tissue is impregnated and surrounded by a crystal lattice, it's possible that the structure it provides locks in place and preserves the tissue structure. This hasn't been tested, though I've talked with paleontologists about designing an experiment. It is much more reasonable to investigate the phenomenon further instead of throwing up our hands and declaring all geochronogical methods are invalid.

Additionally, as has already been pointed out, no soft tissue has ever been found as such. It must first be demineralized, which lends credence to the idea that the crystal structure preserves the tissue structure.

And you keep avoiding Cadet's point that studies have been discarded for not including methodological data rather than experimental data as you keep insisting.

 

[The Cadet]

Because methods that produce results inconsistent with a favored deep-time model are considered unreliable dating methods.

And your examples of this continually fail. The methods that produce results inconsistent with the model are not simply rejected just for producing results inconsistent with the model. I keep asking you to demonstrate your claim here, and you keep on not doing it!

A great example of this is dinosaur soft tissues. Up until very recently, it was widely accepted by the scientific community that there were strict upper time limits for the preservation of organic material in animal remains..

Was it? From my understanding, the precise mechanisms of fossilization were not well-understood. We didn't expect the soft tissue, but it was by no means considered impossible. However, here's the bit where you're dead wrong:

It completely goes against their deep-time expectations.

You know what Mary Schweitzer has been doing since she found the soft tissue? She's been looking into how this is possible. And she's come up with some pretty convincing answers. It's not a refutation of deep time. Do you have a better model? If so, feel free to present it, either here or maybe in another thread. As of right now, the best model we have indicates that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, and that this soft tissue find, while odd, means we need to look for explanations for how it was preserved, and it seems like we're reaching some pretty good conclusions in that regards.

I feel the need to stress this, because it's kind of important. The deep time model accounts for essentially all of the evidence we have and then some. If we find evidence that seems to contradict it, that evidence needs to be subjected to quite a bit of scrutiny - after all, it's trying to overturn a model based on centuries of concordant evidence.

 

[RickG]

Because methods that produce results inconsistent with a favored deep-time model are considered unreliable dating methods.

A while back, this thread maybe or perhaps another, I challenged you to a formal debate concerning dating methods. In fact I believe I suggested you decide which method. However, you declined, and that is understandable; myself, a person who has actually had academic training in dating methods, and you; a person who has no knowledge of scientific dating methods outside what you have acquired from the misrepresented YEC literature.

Anyway, the offer is still extended to you or anyone who feels they can defend the YEC literature on this subject.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

A while before on this thread maybe or perhaps another, I challenged you to a formal debate concerning dating methods. In fact I believe I suggested you decide which method. However, you declined, and that is understandable; myself, a person who has actually had academic training in dating methods, and you; a person who has no knowledge of scientific dating methods outside what you have acquired from the misrepresented YEC literature.

Anyway, the offer is still extended to you or anyone who feels they can defend the YEC literature on this subject.

It seems odd that lifepsyop would refuse that challenge considering that he has stated his main goal is to expose the flaws in the "evolutionist" world view. Seems like a perfect platform for him to achieve this.

 

[bhsmte]

It seems odd that lifepsyop would refuse that challenge considering that he has stated his main goal is to expose the flaws in the "evolutionist" world view. Seems like a perfect platform for him to achieve this.

Quote mines don't go over well in a real debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because methods that produce results inconsistent with a favored deep-time model are considered unreliable dating methods.

At this point, it is an empty assertion since you can't cite examples of this happening.

A great example of this is dinosaur soft tissues. Up until very recently, it was widely accepted by the scientific community that there were strict upper time limits for the preservation of organic material in animal remains.. Soft tissues were expected to decay in a couple hundred thousand years at most, maybe a couple million years in the case of miraculous preservation. This is why deep-time believers have admitted being so shocked by these discoveries. It completely goes against their deep-time expectations.

The radiometric dates for the Hell's Creek formation were never thrown out when soft tissue preservation was found in dinosaur fossils within that formation.

 

[RickG]

It seems odd that lifepsyop would refuse that challenge considering that he has stated his main goal is to expose the flaws in the "evolutionist" world view. Seems like a perfect platform for him to achieve this.

Should he or anyone accept, evolution would be off topic. Way off topic.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Should he or anyone accept, evolution would be off topic. Way off topic.

I meant evolutionists in the way creationists use it, i.e. anything to do with the mainstream scientific view. In this context that would be geochronology.

 

[lifepsyop]

Should he or anyone accept, evolution would be off topic. Way off topic.

Evolution is off topic to old-earth dating models? Are you joking?

 

[RickG]

Evolution is off topic to old-earth dating models? Are you joking?

Dead serious if the specific discussion is targeted toward dating methods.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution is off topic to old-earth dating models? Are you joking?

Why would evolution need to be part of the discussion, when debating dating methods?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is off topic to old-earth dating models? Are you joking?

How do you think they date meteorites and moon rocks?

 

[RickG]

How do you think they date meteorites and moon rocks?

The bottom line is, YEC's have a phobia to staying on topic and having to actually discuss the science.

 

[bhsmte]

The bottom line is, YEC's have a phobia to staying on topic and having to actually discuss the science.

Common and necessary tactic called; muddying the waters.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bottom line is, YEC's have a phobia to staying on topic and having to actually discuss the science.

Is it science that made them a YEC in the first place?

 

[RickG]

Is it science that made them a YEC in the first place?

It depends upon your definition of a YEC. Perhaps asking a YEC would be a better approach, or maybe a good thread for you to start.