Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

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.

Yep. As admitted by geochronologists themselves.

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected." (Odin 1985 pp.42-43)

I wonder how that statement could be taken out of context? Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Again, this isn't particularly surprising. If a scientist thinks data is junk, he's probably going to chuck it.

Your claim, that scientists don't regularly do this sort of thing, is the extraordinary one that people should be skeptical of. But of course, your camp is constantly perpetuating the myth that the scientific community, peer-review process, etc. is essentially infallible.

 

[The Cadet]

Yep. As admitted by geochronologists themselves.

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected." (Odin 1985 pp.42-43)

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ​

I see absolutely no way that the above quote could possibly have been taken out of context!

I wonder how that statement could be taken out of context? Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Why don't you tell me? Look, I'm sorry, but if you can't give me the source and context for that quote, it is useless. If you admit you got it from Woodmorappe, a creationist quite famous for quote-mining the scientific literature, it is almost certainly dishonestly edited. And when you admit you have never read the paper it came from... Well, I'm sorry, but at this point it's just getting sad. Get the source, get the context, consider actually reading the paper you got the quote from, and then come back. Don't bring us this garbage. You're citing a paper you never read, selectively quoted through a second party. That's... not okay. At all.

And did you read that Forster/Warrington paper?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why don't you tell me? Look, I'm sorry, but if you can't give me the source and context for that quote, it is useless.

Nope. It is quite informative. And again, what it says is quite mundane and not surprising in the least.

If you admit you got it from Woodmorappe, a creationist quite famous for quote-mining the scientific literature, it is almost certainly dishonestly edited.

I know this is going to sound crazy to you, but the mere assertion that a creationist is quote-mining, doesn't automatically make it true. Evolutionists quote-mine all the time as well, but I would never assume an evolutionist is quote-mining because they are an evolutionist, or because I heard rumors that they quote-mine. That is childish behavior that people employ to avoid dealing with uncomfortable information.

And again, the only reason to even suspect quote-mining is if the statement is saying something controversial, but it's not in this case. It's simply saying that scientists tend to discard data they think is junk. Why you have such a problem with something so obvious is beyond me.

Well, I'm sorry, but at this point it's just getting sad.

What is sad? You're the one sitting here ranting and raving about something you claim to think is nonsense. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

 

[lasthero]

I know this is going to sound crazy to you, but the mere assertion that a creationist is quote-mining, doesn't automatically make it true. Evolutionists quote-mine all the time as well, but I would never assume an evolutionist is quote-mining because they are an evolutionist, or because I heard rumors that they quote-mine. That is childish behavior that people employ to avoid dealing with uncomfortable information.

And again, the only reason to even suspect quote-mining is if the statement is saying something controversial, but it's not in this case. It's simply saying that scientists tend to discard data they think is junk. Why you have such a problem with something so obvious is beyond me.

Except no one is saying that he's quote mining simply because he's a creationist. It's suspicious because this creationist actually has a history of doing so. He's been shown to quote mine before.

Again, this isn't particularly surprising. If a scientist thinks data is junk, he's probably going to chuck it.

This would be a pretty simple thing to prove for creationists - all they'd need to do would be to date a few things and show that they get widely discordant results that other scientists are just throwing out. But they don't do that. Why don't they do that?

 

[The Cadet]

@lifepsyop

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected."


Tell me what each of the underlined terms is referring to, and back it up with relevant quotes from the paper in question. I don't know what he means by "apparently inferior results". I don't know what he means when he says that one date or formation appears to be highly reliable. I don't know which remarks or rules he means (it's clearly not just the one; there's something we're not seeing here), or what he means by "frequently".

Context. Is. Everything.

Again, you can throw out any number of quotes that seem to be perfectly self-contained. It wouldn't be a good quotemine if it wasn't! And yet, that self-contained Darwin quote above? It completely ignores the context, which was Darwin demolishing the claim that it was, in fact, absurd.

 

[bhsmte]

@lifepsyop

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one date or one formation appears to be highly reliable. These remarks would appear to be somewhat obvious, but experience shows that these rules are frequently rejected."


Tell me what each of the underlined terms is referring to, and back it up with relevant quotes from the paper in question. I don't know what he means by "apparently inferior results". I don't know what he means when he says that one date or formation appears to be highly reliable. I don't know which remarks or rules he means (it's clearly not just the one; there's something we're not seeing here), or what he means by "frequently".

Context. Is. Everything.

Again, you can throw out any number of quotes that seem to be perfectly self-contained. It wouldn't be a good quotemine if it wasn't! And yet, that self-contained Darwin quote above? It completely ignores the context, which was Darwin demolishing the claim that it was, in fact, absurd.

Do you really expect anything else?

 

[RickG]

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?

Most of what we see from "creation science" with respect to dating methods is "quote mines" and "misrepresentations" not only from the scientific literature, but much of it is from textbooks on dating methods. One thing we see in all textbooks on dating methods is problems that can be encountered with each specific method described. What they do is elaborate on the possible problems and conveniently leave out how we know about those problems and how they are detected and avoided. No one throws out dates without a specific reason, which contrary to lifepsyop's claim, is not because it doesn't provide what is expected. The paper he cited and I sourced is an excellent example of it. The purpose of that paper (research) was to determine the most accurate date for the earliest initiation of the Siberian traps (flood-basalts) which marks the boundary between the Permian and Triassic. That volcanic event lasted for millions of years, so only the results of the earliest events are significant to the research. The other dates were reported and were not erroneous nor discarded. In fact they were very important in revealing the onset of the event.

As for discarding samples, we do see this documented in the scientific literature. However, specific reasons for their discard are given. I recall recently reading a paper on one of the Black Sea sea level rise events, (yes, there has been more than one) where samples from a specific site were discarded due to date discrepancy. The discrepancy had to do with the "marine reservoir effect", whose calibration was uncertain for that cite. The lesson there is you don't use data that is questionable. It has nothing to do with whether the date is in the range expected or not.

 

[The Cadet]

Also, as for Woodmorappe's reputation...

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/hiding-the-numbers-to-defame-radiometric-dating.12717/

It's not news.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html#ex1
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/more_classic_woody_misquotes_henke.htm

Any quote taken from this guy at this point should be assumed to be crap. You lie this much? You don't get to make quotes without providing the full context. Period. And I don't understand why you, @lifepsyop , are buying this crap. It makes no sense. You're a smart guy, can't you spot the pattern here?

 

[bhsmte]

Also, as for Woodmorappe's reputation...

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/hiding-the-numbers-to-defame-radiometric-dating.12717/

It's not news.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html#ex1
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/more_classic_woody_misquotes_henke.htm

Any quote taken from this guy at this point should be assumed to be crap. You lie this much? You don't get to make quotes without providing the full context. Period. And I don't understand why you, @lifepsyop , are buying this crap. It makes no sense. You're a smart guy, can't you spot the pattern here?

Being smart is independent, of a stronger need to protect a belief.

 

[StormanNorman]

Most of what we see from "creation science" with respect to dating methods is "quote mines" and "misrepresentations" not only from the scientific literature, but much of it is from textbooks on dating methods. One thing we see in all textbooks on dating methods is problems that can be encountered with each specific method described. What they do is elaborate on the possible problems and conveniently leave out how we know about those problems and how they are detected and avoided. No one throws out dates without a specific reason, which contrary to lifepsyop's claim, is not because it doesn't provide what is expected. The paper he cited and I sourced is an excellent example of it. The purpose of that paper (research) was to determine the most accurate date for the earliest initiation of the Siberian traps (flood-basalts) which marks the boundary between the Permian and Triassic. That volcanic event lasted for millions of years, so only the results of the earliest events are significant to the research. The other dates were reported and were not erroneous nor discarded. In fact they were very important in revealing the onset of the event.

As for discarding samples, we do see this documented in the scientific literature. However, specific reasons for their discard are given. I recall recently reading a paper on one of the Black Sea sea level rise events, (yes, there has been more than one) where samples from a specific site were discarded due to date discrepancy. The discrepancy had to do with the "marine reservoir effect", whose calibration was uncertain for that cite. The lesson there is you don't use data that is questionable. It has nothing to do with whether the date is in the range expected or not.

My understanding is that geologists highly value those situations in which multiple dating methods are available and are consistent.

 

[StormanNorman]

Nope. It is quite informative. And again, what it says is quite mundane and not surprising in the least.



I know this is going to sound crazy to you, but the mere assertion that a creationist is quote-mining, doesn't automatically make it true. Evolutionists quote-mine all the time as well, but I would never assume an evolutionist is quote-mining because they are an evolutionist, or because I heard rumors that they quote-mine. That is childish behavior that people employ to avoid dealing with uncomfortable information.

And again, the only reason to even suspect quote-mining is if the statement is saying something controversial, but it's not in this case. It's simply saying that scientists tend to discard data they think is junk. Why you have such a problem with something so obvious is beyond me.



What is sad? You're the one sitting here ranting and raving about something you claim to think is nonsense. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread.

I don't know, LP; this is starting to look a tad like trolling on your part. You can throw up a thousand quotes; it doesn't matter, buddy. You're not going to convince anyone here (accept those of you ilk) that radiometric dating is questionable science until you actually provide real data that backs that statement up.

 

[StormanNorman]

Except no one is saying that he's quote mining simply because he's a creationist. It's suspicious because this creationist actually has a history of doing so. He's been shown to quote mine before.



This would be a pretty simple thing to prove for creationists - all they'd need to do would be to date a few things and show that they get widely discordant results that other scientists are just throwing out. But they don't do that. Why don't they do that?

Believe it or not, they actually have. Steve Austin and company dated a Mt. Saint Helens rock using K-Ar and outdated equipment and got an answer in the hundreds of thousands of years ....and, then, of course, all went home happy

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Which means what, since I bet I've read everything on it you have read too?

You are making stuff up.

Are you claiming humans skeletons have been found with dinosaurs? Of course your not, because humans did not exist then. So how am I making anything up when the fossil record agrees with me?

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

Says who? You?

I just need translate the Hebrew words properly - not with pre-conceived beliefs, like earlier people did.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

"And the earth (became - hayah) desolate and waste. And darkness (became - hayah) upon the face of the deep."

My Bible told me the earth just come out of a destructive period not too long ago before man was created. Before you even conceived of a meteor or comet crashing into earth causing their destruction.

Because you are making stuff up.

I'm not the one claiming one thing evolves through mutation into something else, when all life propagates by breed mating with breed - and short period of flux - and then a new breed is set.

I'm not the one insisting all Triceratops are triceratops that evolve into a separate species T. Prorsus, when the fossil record clearly fits two breeds mating and producing a third. I'm not the one claiming every single one of Darwin's Finches are separate species, when every single one interbreeds with the other.

I'm not the one needing to make up anything. Just accept reality. It seems to me you are making things up to deny the truth and your refusal to accept how reproduction works. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolves through mutations into the Chinook. During cross-mating of breeds a short period of flux ensues, and then the Chinook breed is set. I'm not the one misinterpreting those few fossils in flux as transitory species of a mutating animal becoming a new species, when what we observe in real life involves no mutations or evolution in the slightest, and never a new species.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm really not sure why everyone is so worked up...

You stated that you did not accept the validity of deep time results from radiometric dating because any results that don't support deep time can be discarded with the excuse of contamination. You are suggesting that geochronologists are misidentifying results as contaminated and therefore radiometric dating is not producing reliable results. People are objecting to this because you've given no evidence whatsoever that the scientists are incorrectly identifying contamination. People are not objecting to the idea that results are discarded due to contamination but to your implicit and unsupported claim that researchers are not scientifically justified in doing so.

Also, still waiting for a response to thus post:

http://www.christianforums.com/posts/68096742/

 

[The Cadet]

Oh yeah, and speaking of "rejecting inconvenient results":
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...volution-theory-kicked-in-face.7889400/unread

 

[lifepsyop]

You stated that you did not accept the validity of deep time results from radiometric dating because any results that don't support deep time can be discarded with the excuse of contamination. You are suggesting that geochronologists are misidentifying results as contaminated and therefore radiometric dating is not producing reliable results. People are objecting to this because you've given no evidence whatsoever that the scientists are incorrectly identifying contamination. People are not objecting to the idea that results are discarded due to contamination but to your implicit and unsupported claim that researchers are not scientifically justified in doing so.

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's when old-earth believers begin pushing "concordance of dating data" as irrefutable proof of its validity that we find an obvious problem.

For example, we are shown snazzy little diagrams like this one posted earlier.

This is gospel to old-earth believers. They look at those numbers and marvel at how agreeable the dates are and are beside themselves that anyone would question it.

The problem is that nobody tells you how much discordant data was filtered out to produce those results. We are looking at data, only after it has passed through a sieve, i.e. the confirmation bias of the scientist. The concordance is an illusion because the discordance is masked.

Ironically, look how many in this thread whine about "quote-mining" and "taking things out of context", yet for all the years they've been bandying about popular compilations of old-earth "dates", they themselves have never been presenting the data in its full context.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's when old-earth believers begin pushing "concordance of dating data" as irrefutable proof of its validity that we find an obvious problem.

It's a problem only if certain dates are being thrown out erroneously. You assume this is happening, but you have provided no examples.

For example, we are shown snazzy little diagrams like this one posted earlier.

This is gospel to old-earth believers. They look at those numbers and marvel at how agreeable the dates are and are beside themselves that anyone would question it.

The problem is that nobody tells you how much discordant data was filtered out to produce those results. We are looking at data, only after it has passed through a sieve, i.e. the confirmation bias of the scientist. The concordance is an illusion because the discordance is masked.

Ironically, look how many in this thread whine about "quote-mining" and "taking things out of context", yet for all the years they've been bandying about popular compilations of old-earth "dates", they themselves have never been presenting the data in its full context.

You've just reiterated your belief that dates are being thrown out erronwously. You haven't given any evidence that this is the case. You haven't given any evidence for stating that the concordance is an illusion. You've merely demonstrated that contaminated results get thrown out.

Also, you should address this post so we don't have to go through it again when you try to make the point about the fossil record:

http://www.christianforums.com/posts/68096742/

 

[The Cadet]

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's when old-earth believers begin pushing "concordance of dating data" as irrefutable proof of its validity that we find an obvious problem.

For example, we are shown snazzy little diagrams like this one posted earlier.

This is gospel to old-earth believers. They look at those numbers and marvel at how agreeable the dates are and are beside themselves that anyone would question it.

The problem is that nobody tells you how much discordant data was filtered out to produce those results. We are looking at data, only after it has passed through a sieve, i.e. the confirmation bias of the scientist. The concordance is an illusion because the discordance is masked.

Well all right then, here's your big chance to make your point. What data was erroneously filtered out, and why? Please cite your claims from the paper, "40Ar/39Ar age spectra and total-fusion ages of tektites from Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary sedimentary rocks in the Beloc Formation, Haiti" that the graph was lifted from. I even found you a working link to the full text of the paper!

I mean, you're making this accusation that dates were rejected because they didn't fit, rather than because of evidence of contamination or methodological errors. These are big accusations - career-ending accusations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license over one such intentional fudging. I assume this means you've read the paper this graph is based on and can point out where this happened. Because, you know, otherwise, you're just making stuff up about scientific research you haven't even read, and defaming a scientist baselessly. That'd be kinda bad.

Ironically, look how many in this thread whine about "quote-mining" and "taking things out of context", yet for all the years they've been bandying about popular compilations of old-earth "dates", they themselves have never been presenting the data in its full context.

Dude, you know how I know this graph isn't some kind of out-of-context quote mine? Because the guy presenting it is the lead author. And the data itself was published in peer review. And, you know, you can read the paper. Something I don't think you've done or plan to do.

I don't know why you think you can just say whatever you want about research that you clearly haven't read and don't understand. Newsflash, we're skeptics. We check things. When you say something like "this quote proves that an incredibly useful, widely-used and universally-accepted tool is untrustworthy", we're gonna ask for the context. When you say "this study filtered out data in order to come to its intended conclusion", we're gonna ask you to prove it. And when you refuse to even answer the most basic of questions in order to support your opinion... Well, I dunno. What should we take from that?

(By the way, did you ever read that Forster/Warrington paper you quoted from? It's a simple yes or no question, man, how come you haven't given an answer yet?)

 

[RickG]

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's when old-earth believers begin pushing "concordance of dating data" as irrefutable proof of its validity that we find an obvious problem.

Data is only disregarded when it is known to be unreliable, not because it doesn't meet the results of what the researchers are looking for. I am getting very tired of you making unsupported baseless claims concerning research methods you know nothing about. As a person who has had actual experience with what you are debasing, I have had enough and will get moderators involved if it continues.

 

[lifepsyop]

Data is only disregarded when it is known to be unreliable, not because it doesn't meet the results of what the researchers are looking for.

If scientists believe they have a reliable dating model for part of a geologic timeline, then contradictory results are going to be assumed to be from contamination and discarded. I have already presented an admission from the literature that certain dates are deemed inferior because they disagree with dating models that are considered reliable. The discordance may be inspected and reported on, or it may not. That is up to the scientist.

Again, none of this is surprising. The more reliable a model is perceived to be, (old-earth ages are considered sacrosanct) the more apt scientists will be to discard data that disagrees with it, especially if they have plausible reasons to do so. (high potential for contamination)

I am getting very tired of you making unsupported baseless claims concerning research methods you know nothing about. As a person who has had actual experience with what you are debasing, I have had enough and will get moderators involved if it continues.

My claims are both supported by statements made by geochronologists (I am satisfied that they meant what they said, if you want to say it is all quote-mined, then have a blast), and the observations of normal human behavior and confirmation bias.

Interesting that you are now making veiled threats to have me banned. These kinds of reactions are how I know I'm dealing with an evolutionary creation religion. Nobody would ever get this upset about science.