Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's probably against forum rules to call people liars. I wouldn't really care except I've already been banned for far less.
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.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.
I said sedimentary strata, not sedimentation. Do you not know the difference.
That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.
The point is there are no human fossils in Cretaceous strata, nor are there any dinosaur fossils in Devonian strata, etc., etc., etc..
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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 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?It's just a blog post of someone insulting people he disagrees with. It sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.
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?
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.
Unlike you, I actually have training and experience in sedimentation processes and sedimentary strata.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?
You are making stuff up.Because there were no humans then - they are a recent creation after the 5 destructions.
That's not science. Its your distortion of scripture.Didn't you read what I said? "And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste." There is no "was" in it.
Because you are making stuff up.There have been 6 creation events, why wouldn't it be segregated after each destruction?
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.
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 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?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 thought we were discussing geochronology.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.
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?
"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.
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).
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.
So he is some guy getting paid to defend the Big Bang.
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.
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.)
So he is some guy getting paid to defend the Big Bang.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?