Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

It's probably against forum rules to call people liars. I wouldn't really care except I've already been banned for far less.

Then how would you describe your behavior? What you posted was so misleading that you have to know what you are doing. You have to know that you are purposefully misleading people with false information. What is the name for that?

 

[The Cadet]

I'm not sure what you mean because the quote was concerning Forster and Warrington's 1985 work.

Geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic
"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considred unacceptable by present standards."

http://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.short

Dates that do not give preferred results are filtered out of consideration.

Do you have access to the full article? Because one thing this quote does not contain is what the criteria are. And this isn't even the first time you've been called on quote-mining this paper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I said sedimentary strata, not sedimentation. Do you not know the difference.

Ummm, how do you think, those sedimentary strata got there? Perhaps by sedimentation????? Do you believe every so many millions of years a completely new material was laid done, in a crisp clean line over the other? I mean really?

That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

Why, because you don't want to admit your theory is based upon .025%?

The point is there are no human fossils in Cretaceous strata, nor are there any dinosaur fossils in Devonian strata, etc., etc., etc..

Because there were no humans then - they are a recent creation after the 5 destructions.

Didn't you read what I said? "And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste." There is no "was" in it.

There have been 6 creation events, why wouldn't it be segregated after each destruction?

In geologic time sudden means millions of years. And if you are referring to extinction events, there were 6 MAJOR extinction events, and at least 20 MINOR extinction events known to have occurred.

5, count them, whether you want to admit it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events

Isolated minor events mean nothing, since the majority of life continues to thrive and produce offspring, and so requires no guiding hand. Only when almost all life goes extinct, do entirely new forms rise up - fully formed in the fossil record.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So I have asked you a simple question and all I get is irreverent obfuscation. Why do we find dinosaurs only in Mesozoic strata and no where else in the geologic column? Why we not find any rabbits in Cambrian strata? How did the fossils get into the strata where we find them and no where else. This has nothing to do with evolution predicting anything. Just answer the question.

Because you ignore the 6 creation's and the 5 destruction's that segregated each creative act. Why would dinosaurs be part of an earlier creation if they hadn't been created yet? Each of the layering's that separate eras, are laid down from the catastrophic events that occurred. Why you would think dinosaurs not being found with man should trouble me, when each was a distinct creative act confuses me? I'm not the one requiring those missing links that are missing between each creation and the following creation after the previous was destroyed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you ignore the 6 creation's and the 5 destruction's that segregated each creative act. Why would dinosaurs be part of an earlier creation if they hadn't been created yet? Each of the layering's that separate eras, are laid down from the catastrophic events that occurred. Why you would think dinosaurs not being found with man should trouble me, when each was a distinct creative act confuses me?

Mammals appear in the Mesozoic and they are still here. Humans are mammals. So why wouldn't we see mammals in the Mesozoic?

 

[lifepsyop]

And just to expand on that, what's even the point? That scientists, who are overwhelmingly stating that this stuff works, "secretly" have huge doubts and are ignoring the data just because? And then they're publishing these huge doubts in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone can read it? It makes no sense.

I've stated the point over and over again. Geochronologists will tend to discard the dates that do not agree with a preferred timeline. They are allowed, and from their perspective justified, in doing this because unfavorable dates can typically be blamed on contamination. There is nothing particularly novel or surprising about this.

I'm really not sure why everyone is so worked up about such a mundane and demonstrable concept, except that it is putting a dent in the naive illusion that geochronology is some kind of bastion of infallible objectivity completely unhindered by confirmation bias of the researchers.

You guys make the same exact claims of infallibility about literally everything to do with your evolutionary creation model. Of course you have no idea if it's true or not, you just like to say it. You say it so much that when someone disputes it your heads explode.

 

[The Cadet]

Coming back to the letter in the OP, I recently found a video by pseudonymous physics professor Martymer81 where the letter is discussed. Here's the link right to the point in the video, and here is the full video:

It turns out the letter is full of fairly blatant mistakes when it comes to the big bang cosmology, which sort of does throw the credentials of those who signed it into question.

Martymer also references Sean Carroll's response to the same letter: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2004/05/29/doubt-and-dissent-are-not-tolerated/

Here is the kind of thing the petition says:

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.​

Really? How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves? These are just the very quantitative predictions that have come true in the last few years; the Big Bang has had a long history of many observational successes. (This is a very incomplete list; usually one doesn’t pay much attention to straightforward tests of the Big Bang framework, since they are taken for granted.)

And...

So, shouldn’t we devote a certain fraction of our scientific resources, or our high-school and secondary curricula, to considering alternatives to the Big Bang, or for that matter Darwinian evolution? No. Simply because resources are finite, and we have to use them the best we can. It is conceivable in principle that the basics of the Big Bang model (an expanding universe that was much hotter and denser in the past) are somehow wrong, but the chances are so infinitesimally small that it’s just not worth the bother. If individual researchers would like to pursue a non-Big-Bang line, they are welcome to do so; that’s what tenure is for, to allow people to work out ideas that others think are a waste of time. But the community is under no obligation to spend its money supporting them. And yes, young people who disbelieve in the Big Bang are unlikely to get invited to speak at major conferences, or get permanent jobs at research universities. Likewise astrophysicists who believe in astrology, or medical doctors who use leeches to fight cancer. Just because scientific claims are never proven with metaphysical certainty doesn’t mean we can’t ever reach a conclusion and move on.

And...

Just because a person doesn’t understand general relativity doesn’t mean they are dumb, by any means. But if your professional activity consists of combating a cosmological model that is based on GR, you shouldn’t open your mouth without understanding at least the basics. So if I get to decide whether to allocate money or jobs to one of the bright graduate students working on some of the many fruitful issues raised by the Big Bang cosmology, or divert it to a crackpot who claims that the Big Bang has no empirical successes, it’s an easy choice. Not censorship, just sensible allocation of resources in a finite world.

In fact, just read the whole blog post, it's not that much shorter than my excerpts.

TL;DR version: the petition is filled with blatant, obvious errors and is signed largely by crackpots and cranks, far from the claims made earlier in the thread. There is no censorship here, any more than the person getting a research grant for phlogiston discovery being rejected is censorship.

 

[lifepsyop]

It means that they were irrelevant for that geologic timeline. Carbon dating of lake varves from the last 10k years are going to be irrelevant for dating the Deccan traps. That doesn't mean that the carbon dating of the lake varves is wrong.

"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considered unacceptable by present standards."

They discarded many of the dates that were previously used for the timeline in question.

Why would they even be discussing dates that were "irrelevant to the geologic timeline" being researched? Your response makes no sense. Were you just posting the very first random thought that popped into your head?

 

[The Cadet]

I've stated the point over and over again. Geochronologists will tend to discard the dates that do not agree with a preferred timeline.

I keep asking for citations, and you gave me quotes, ripped from context, often hilariously so. You admitted you had not read the sources for those quotes yourself, but instead relied on a creationist who had yet to be debunked... Except he has been, by numerous sources. Come on, man. If this happens all the time, how about you give us some real examples? Maybe something from a scientific paper where you can actually offer us the context, instead of a quote-mine you bought hook, line, and sinker?

They are allowed, and from their perspective justified, in doing this because unfavorable dates can typically be blamed on contamination. There is nothing particularly novel or surprising about this.

But they don't do this simply because the dates don't line up with their "preferred timeline". Have you ever looked into under which conditions they assert contamination? Again, I'm asking you for evidence that they claim contamination without good reason. The problem here, of course, is that you know very little about radiochronology, so I kinda doubt you'd be able to spot the problematic issues in the first place. Especially ones that peer review missed. I mean, case in point:

"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considered unacceptable by present standards."

Did you read the paper? Yes or no? Did you read the full text of the paper?

 

[lifepsyop]

Martymer also references Sean Carroll's response to the same letter: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2004/05/29/doubt-and-dissent-are-not-tolerated/

It's just a blog post of someone insulting people he disagrees with. It sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.

 

[The Cadet]

It's just a blog post of someone insulting people he disagrees with. It sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.

It's a blogpost written by a fairly preeminent cosmologist and physicist - someone currently active in academia at the cutting edge of his field, where he explicitly points out some of the significant flaws with both the letter and at least one of the signatories (he doesn't just call him an idiot, he explains why he's an idiot). Forget whether or not you read the paper (actually, I still want an answer on that one); did you even read the blog post?

 

[lifepsyop]

Come on, man. If this happens all the time, how about you give us some real examples? Maybe something from a scientific paper where you can actually offer us the context, instead of a quote-mine you bought hook, line, and sinker?

The funny thing is that you would probably admit that contamination is abundant, yet for some reason you have a problem with the idea that geochronologists discard a lot of data they believe to be contaminated. You're asking me for references (of which I've provided) for a scenario that you shouldn't even be doubting in the first place. Your position doesn't even really make sense.

But they don't do this simply because the dates don't line up with their "preferred timeline". Have you ever looked into under which conditions they assert contamination? Again, I'm asking you for evidence that they claim contamination without good reason.

When did I say they don't have a good reason? It is well known that radioactive materials suffer from different types of contamination. Thus geochronologists have every reason to discard the samples that do not line up with their preferred timeline. I thought we have been over this already.

 

[RickG]

Ummm, how do you think, those sedimentary strata got there? Perhaps by sedimentation????? Do you believe every so many millions of years a completely new material was laid done, in a crisp clean line over the other? I mean really?

Unlike you, I actually have training and experience in sedimentation processes and sedimentary strata.

Because there were no humans then - they are a recent creation after the 5 destructions.

You are making stuff up.

Didn't you read what I said? "And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste." There is no "was" in it.

That's not science. Its your distortion of scripture.

There have been 6 creation events, why wouldn't it be segregated after each destruction?

Because you are making stuff up.

 

[The Cadet]

The funny thing is that you would probably admit that contamination is abundant, yet for some reason you have a problem with the idea that geochronologists discard a lot of data they believe to be contaminated. You're asking me for references (of which I've provided) for a scenario that you shouldn't even be doubting in the first place. Your position doesn't even really make sense.



When did I say they don't have a good reason? It is well known that radioactive materials suffer from different types of contamination. Thus geochronologists have every reason to discard the samples that do not line up with their preferred timeline. I thought we have been over this already.

*sigh*

Let's just go over this again to make sure I understand your claims.

You are claiming that a tool almost universally used by geologists and paleontologists to establish age is faulty. You are claiming that due to the excuse of "contamination", they can easily discard any date that does not fit in the timeline they have established.

Am I evaluating you correctly so far? And did you read that Forster/Warrington paper? (Yeah, I'm gonna be a real pain in the butt about that one. )

 

[RickG]

I've stated the point over and over again. Geochronologists will tend to discard the dates that do not agree with a preferred timeline. They are allowed, and from their perspective justified, in doing this because unfavorable dates can typically be blamed on contamination. There is nothing particularly novel or surprising about this.

They do no such thing other than your own made up fantasies.

I'm really not sure why everyone is so worked up about such a mundane and demonstrable concept, except that it is putting a dent in the naive illusion that geochronology is some kind of bastion of infallible objectivity completely unhindered by confirmation bias of the researchers.

I'm worked up because you keep making false accusations about a field you have no knowledge much less experience in, while I have have had both academic and professional experience in it. Perhaps an apology is forthcoming now?

You guys make the same exact claims of infallibility about literally everything to do with your evolutionary creation model. Of course you have no idea if it's true or not, you just like to say it. You say it so much that when someone disputes it your heads explode.

I thought we were discussing geochronology.

 

[The Cadet]

They do no such thing other than your own made up fantasies.


I'm worked up because you keep making false accusations about a field you have no knowledge much less experience in, while I have have had both academic and professional experience in it. Perhaps an apology is forthcoming now?

Oops.

See, the problem with making completely made-up and bogus claims about a field of science is that there's a pretty decent chance that someone here actually has some expertise in that field. And this is where I'm getting at, lifepsyop. Do you have any idea under which conditions samples are rejected? RickG, would you care to elaborate on that same question at all?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considered unacceptable by present standards."

They discarded many of the dates that were previously used for the timeline in question.

Why are they considered unacceptable?

 

[lifepsyop]

It's a blogpost written by a fairly preeminent cosmologist and physicist -

Okay... preeminent cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists dispute the Big Bang. They have made sincere appeals to the mainstream community to recognize that scientific criticism of the Big-Bang is being ignored and to allow open debate. What is Mr. Carroll's enlightening response to this? "The Big Bang just rubs some people the wrong way..." Give me a break. It's just a lame hit piece.

someone currently active in academia at the cutting edge of his field,

So he is some guy getting paid to defend the Big Bang.

where he explicitly points out some of the significant flaws with both the letter and at least one of the signatories (he doesn't just call him an idiot, he explains why he's an idiot).

Not really, he just hand-waves that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't understand 'science'.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay... preeminent cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists dispute the Big Bang.

Like who?

They have made sincere appeals to the mainstream community to recognize that scientific criticism of the Big-Bang is being ignored and to allow open debate.

That already exists. It's called peer reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

So he is some guy getting paid to defend the Big Bang.

He is a rational scientist trying to protect his field from crackpots.

 

[The Cadet]

Okay... preeminent cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists dispute the Big Bang. They have made sincere appeals to the mainstream community to recognize that scientific criticism of the Big-Bang is being ignored and to allow open debate. What is Mr. Carroll's enlightening response to this? "The Big Bang just rubs some people the wrong way..." Give me a break. It's just a lame hit piece.

Oh for the love of batman.

Here is the kind of thing the petition says:

"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles."

Really? How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves? These are just the very quantitative predictions that have come true in the last few years; the Big Bang has had a long history of many observational successes. (This is a very incomplete list; usually one doesn’t pay much attention to straightforward tests of the Big Bang framework, since they are taken for granted.)

Any researcher who signed that petition immediately loses all claim to credibility.

So he is some guy getting paid to defend the Big Bang.

Do you know anything about cosmology? Like, at all? I don't think you do.

Not really, he just hand-waves that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't understand 'science'.

Here is the kind of thing the petition says:

"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles."

Really? How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves? These are just the very quantitative predictions that have come true in the last few years; the Big Bang has had a long history of many observational successes. (This is a very incomplete list; usually one doesn’t pay much attention to straightforward tests of the Big Bang framework, since they are taken for granted.)

Consider this quote by Eric Lerner, petition signatory and author of The Big Bang Never Happened:

"No Conservation of Energy

The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics–the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics."

Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it’s called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved. Nothing fancy to do with dark energy — the same thing is true for ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved, so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been observed.

Just because a person doesn’t understand general relativity doesn’t mean they are dumb, by any means. But if your professional activity consists of combating a cosmological model that is based on GR, you shouldn’t open your mouth without understanding at least the basics.

So no, you didn't read the blog post.

Let me make this as clear as I can. People who deny the big bang cosmology model in cosmology are like people in geology who think that the earth is 6000 years old. They're crackpots. They aren't worth our time or our attention. They have absolutely no basis in reality for their claims, and only those completely uneducated in the field, with no understanding of the theories accepted or the reasons why they were accepted, or worse yet, scientific illiterates who think that "consensus" is a dirty word and that the only reason they can't get their genius ideas published is because "the man" is trying to keep them down, will take them seriously. This is simply a truth of cosmology, and it's what Carroll is considerably more nice about than I am willing to be at this point.

Now have you read that paper or not?