Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

Not quite. The data you're accusing them of excluding (entire dates) is not the same data Forster and Warrington are accusing them of excluding (specific details as to how the date was gathered and the radiological data involved in measuring it). It's the difference between them saying "this date doesn't work, let's chuck it" and them saying "we don't really have to publish every detail of our methodology". Both are clearly problematic, let's be clear, but the former is a serious issue of systemic corruption, while the latter just makes the dates hard to analyze in a metareview.

If they cut corners on the data that was published, how unreasonable is it to assume they would discard data that they didn't feel they could work with in the first place? It would not be "systemic corruption" as the geochronologist would simply believe he is discarding irrelevant junk data for the purpose of being able to focus on meaningful data.

I just noticed something else from their criteria:

"1. The stratigraphic position of the dated rocks or minerals must be known. Ideally, samples for radiometric dating should be from extrusive igneous rocks intercalated with fossiliferous sediments which are precisely dated by independent biostratigraphic means...

2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible.... The data should be internally consistent and should not be in conflict with the known geological sequence."

I could be wrong, but it sounds like they're saying that the geologic sequence should first be identified by the fossils, and the radiometric data should then be expected to roughly match the expected age of those fossils. Otherwise it would be considered unsuitable data in regards to establishing an age model for that particular geologic sequence.

On a related note... I have heard it claimed numerous times that the research of the Geology/Geochronology community works independently of biological evolutionary models, so as to make it appear that these independent fields of science all corroborate Evolution with independent lines of data. But it seems that this claim is false and that these other schools impose Evolutionary models onto their research on a fundamental level.

 

[Loudmouth]

If they cut corners on the data that was published, how unreasonable is it to assume they would discard data that they didn't feel they could work with in the first place? It would not be "systemic corruption" as the geochronologist would simply believe he is discarding irrelevant junk data for the purpose of being able to focus on meaningful data.

Empty accusations.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like they're saying that the geologic sequence should first be identified by the fossils, and the radiometric data should then be expected to roughly match the expected age of those fossils.

That would be false. What they are saying is that the rocks being dated must be associated with the fossil bearing strata. The measured age of the rock is done by measuring isotopes. It doesn't use fossils at all.

On a related note... I have heard it claimed numerous times that the research of the Geology/Geochronology community works independently of biological evolutionary models, so as to make it appear that these independent fields of science all corroborate Evolution with independent lines of data. But it seems that this claim is false and that these other schools impose Evolutionary models onto their research on a fundamental level.

More empty accusations.

 

[lifepsyop]

Empty accusations.

It is already admitted that geochronologists have tended to neglect including important data. It stands to reason that they also tend to leave out data they consider to be junk or noise. (i.e. "bad dates")

Your claim, that geochronologists never, ever leave out any date data, is far more extraordinary than mine.

My claim is reasonable and supported. Yours is rather absurd.

That would be false. What they are saying is that the rocks being dated must be associated with the fossil bearing strata. The measured age of the rock is done by measuring isotopes. It doesn't use fossils at all.

How did you read 'careful rock gathering' into that? Did you just make that up? Read again. They are clearly referring to the radiometric data itself.

"2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible.... The data should be internally consistent and should not be in conflict with the known geological sequence."

Tell me how are they gauging whether or not the radiometric data is "in conflict with the known geologic sequence" ???

 

[bhsmte]

It is already admitted that geochronologists have tended to neglect including important data. It stands to reason that they also tend to leave out data they consider to be junk or noise. (i.e. "bad dates")

Your claim, that geochronologists never, ever leave out any date data, is far more extraordinary than mine.

My claim is reasonable and supported. Yours is rather absurd.
QUOTE]

Then support your claim with reliable evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then support your claim with reliable evidence.

Can you elaborate. Are you asking for me to show evidence of what was not published?

I already provided evidence that geochronologists tend to fail to include important relevant data. Geochronologists admit it themselves.

Sorry but it looks like your position is the one without any support.

 

[The Cadet]

It is already admitted that geochronologists have tended to neglect including important data. It stands to reason that they also tend to leave out data they consider to be junk or noise. (i.e. "bad dates")

No it doesn't. In medicine, up until fairly recently, it was not standard operating procedure to include the raw data of your PCR analysis in papers where PCR was relevant, because it was taken as a given that any medical student worth their salt would include the data (this changed after Andrew Wakefield happened, for fairly obvious reasons). Not including that data, however, did not mean that you could get away with not including patients in your study simply because their results were inconvenient. There's a massive difference here. The analogy here should be pretty clear.

"2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible.... The data should be internally consistent and should not be in conflict with the known geological sequence."

Tell me how are they gauging whether or not the radiometric data is "in conflict with the known geologic sequence" ???

That's a very good question. Why don't we go look for an answer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you elaborate. Are you asking for me to show evidence of what was not published?

Are you saying that you have been making baseless allegations this entire time?

I already provided evidence that geochronologists tend to fail to include important relevant data. Geochronologists admit it themselves.

That doesn't mean that the dates are bad or discordant.

 

[lifepsyop]

No it doesn't. In medicine, up until fairly recently, it was not standard operating procedure to include the raw data of your PCR analysis in papers where PCR was relevant, because it was taken as a given that any medical student worth their salt would include the data (this changed after Andrew Wakefield happened, for fairly obvious reasons). Not including that data, however, did not mean that you could get away with not including patients in your study simply because their results were inconvenient. There's a massive difference here. The analogy here should be pretty clear.

This is not a good analogy. The very fact that a patient is included in a study means that the observation of that patient is meaningful to the study. The conclusion is not known to the conductors of the study.

However it has already been demonstrated that geochronologists already "know" the general "date" they're looking for. Therefore, from their perspective, they may honestly choose to exclude data that seems so far off the mark that it must have been contaminated or reworked. In their mind, they know it will not be useful in establishing a general dating scheme.

That's a very good question. Why don't we go look for an answer?

Forster and Warrington clearly state that the result of the analyzed radiometric data should not be in conflict with the "known geologic sequence". There's not really a question here. It's up to one of you to prove that they really meant something entirely different.

Loudmouth made a clumsy blunder in claiming they were somehow referring to the collection of rocks.

Maybe one of the other resident experts can shed more light on the issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is already admitted that geochronologists have tended to neglect including important data.

They have tended to neglect ambiguous data. Also, the "neglected data" you describe could just as well be condordant dates.

It stands to reason that they also tend to leave out data they consider to be junk or noise. (i.e. "bad dates")

Jumping to conclusions again.

Your claim, that geochronologists never, ever leave out any date data, is far more extraordinary than mine.

They leave in all the good data, the data that they expect is repeatable and accurate to what they are measuring. If you go to the same rocks and use the same methodology, it is expected that you will get those same results.

My claim is reasonable and supported.

Your claim is based on fantasy.

How did you read 'careful rock gathering' into that? Did you just make that up? Read again. They are clearly referring to the radiometric data itself.

"Ideally, samples for radiometric dating should be from extrusive igneous rocks intercalated with fossiliferous sediments . . .

What does "intercalated" mean?

"insert (something) between layers in a crystal lattice, geological formation, or other structure."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=intercalated

What they are looking for is igneous rock that is directly associated with the fossil bearing strata. Not above it. Not below it. Right in it. Those are the best, most relevant rocks to date. Rocks that are well below or well above those fossil bearing strata would be more ambiguous or less relevant.

Do you understand this or not?

"2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible.... The data should be internally consistent

and should not be in conflict with the known geological sequence."

Tell me how are they gauging whether or not the radiometric data is "in conflict with the known geologic sequence" ???

It should be internally consistent, and it is.

 

[lifepsyop]

"Ideally, samples for radiometric dating should be from extrusive igneous rocks intercalated with fossiliferous sediments . . .

Yes in point #1 they are stating that dating samples should be gathered from geologic sequences that have been identified by their fossil content. We've already established this.

Now we're on to point #2 where Forster and Warrington are unequivocally discussing analysis of the radiometric dating results. This is not complicated.

Here is the full text.

"2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible. Ages should be derived from completely undisturbed systems and be confirmed by isochron techniques or by a number of separate conventional K-Ar, Rb-Sr or fission track determinations. If the chemistry of the rock allows, several different dating methods should be used on rocks and minerals from the same geological environment. The data should be internally consistent and not in conflict with the known geological sequence."

It should be internally consistent, and it is.

Your inability to complete the sentence is a concession.

"The data should be internally consistent and not in conflict with the known geological sequence."

Unless Forster and Warrington have suddenly begun speaking in a mysterious code halfway through this sentence, we can clearly see that they are stating that the analyzed radiometric dating data should not be in conflict with the expected age of the geologic sequence.

What's so complicated about that?

Perhaps readers should question why this bothers you so much that you're trying to obfuscate it.

 

[The Cadet]

This is not a good analogy. The very fact that a patient is included in a study means that the observation of that patient is meaningful to the study. The conclusion is not known to the conductors of the study.

However it has already been demonstrated that geochronologists already "know" the general "date" they're looking for. Therefore, from their perspective, they may honestly choose to exclude data that seems so far off the mark that it must have been contaminated or reworked. In their mind, they know it will not be useful in establishing a general dating scheme.

No, you're missing the point here. You're claiming that the fact that they neglect to include methodological data that can reasonably be assumed to be valid (PCR measurements/the actual isotropic measurements) when dealing with responsible scientists does not mean they somehow throw out meaningful data that actually impacts the hypothesis (the results of PCR measurements/the dates measured)! You're comparing apples and oranges to try to make an entire field of science look bad. Look, you think they're excluding dates baselessly? Back it up! Don't just say "they exclude other data" as though that proves that the entire enterprise is corrupt.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, you're missing the point here. You're claiming that the fact that they neglect to include methodological data that can reasonably be assumed to be valid (PCR measurements/the actual isotropic measurements) when dealing with responsible scientists does not mean they somehow throw out meaningful data that actually impacts the hypothesis (the results of PCR measurements/the dates measured)! You're comparing apples and oranges to try to make an entire field of science look bad. Look, you think they're excluding dates baselessly? Back it up! Don't just say "they exclude other data" as though that proves that the entire enterprise is corrupt.

But we've already established that radiometric dates that are in significant conflict of expected ages of particular geologic sequences are not considered "meaningful data" for establishing geologic dating models. This is a reasonable assumption if you fully believe in conventional old-earth geologic timelines, as all secular geochemists do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes in point #1 they are stating that dating samples should be gathered from geologic sequences that have been identified by their fossil content. We've already established this.

That is not what I said. They are establishing whether or not an igneous rock is relevant to the fossils you want to date.

Now we're on to point #2 where Forster and Warrington are unequivocally discussing analysis of the radiometric dating results. This is not complicated.

Here is the full text.

"2. The radioisotopic data should be as precise and unambiguous as possible. Ages should be derived from completely undisturbed systems and be confirmed by isochron techniques or by a number of separate conventional K-Ar, Rb-Sr or fission track determinations. If the chemistry of the rock allows, several different dating methods should be used on rocks and minerals from the same geological environment. The data should be internally consistent and not in conflict with the known geological sequence."

And it doesn't conflict. That is why radiometric dating is considered a good method.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

That is an example of exactly what your reference is talking about. The data is consistent, as we would expect from a method that does work.

 

[lifepsyop]

And it doesn't conflict. That is why radiometric dating is considered a good method.

It? Why are you referring to specific cases? We were discussing Forster and Warrington's criteria. This is yet another blatant dodge. I accept your concession.

 

[The Cadet]

It? Why are you referring to specific cases? We were discussing Forster and Warrington's criteria. This is yet another blatant dodge. I accept your concession.

If you're going to contest a widely-used, almost universally accepted form of age measurement, then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to bring better things to the table than "this one paper might potentially indicate that the method is circular". You assert that they throw out dates with no evidence to support your claim beyond the inference that because they throw out some other, considerably more useless data, they must also be throwing out the very data they are trying to measure!

 

[Loudmouth]

It? Why are you referring to specific cases? We were discussing Forster and Warrington's criteria. This is yet another blatant dodge. I accept your concession.

Forster and Warrington's criteria have been met. I accept your concession that this is indeed the case since you refuse to deal with the data I have presented.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you're going to contest a widely-used, almost universally accepted form of age measurement, then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to bring better things to the table than "this one paper might potentially indicate that the method is circular".

At least you can admit the reasoning appears circular. Loudmouth is putting on quite the comedy act by having to dance around the obvious.

 

[The Cadet]

At least you can admit the reasoning appears circular.

I have done no such thing. You've pointed to one single paper that I'd argue neither of us fully understand, using bad implications to act like they throw out data without mentioning it. I don't agree with that, and frankly, I think it's a little bit ridiculous. Have you ever considered trying to contact the authors or reviewers of this paper? Or actually asking an expert on the subject about this? You might get better results than from a random Comp-Sci dropout on a forum for Christians.

 

[Loudmouth]

At least you can admit the reasoning appears circular. Loudmouth is putting on quite the comedy act by having to dance around the obvious.

I accept that as a concession from you that radiometric dating works since you have no other explanation for the consilient data that has been presented.

 

[RickG]

I have done no such thing. You've pointed to one single paper that I'd argue neither of us fully understand, using bad implications to act like they throw out data without mentioning it. I don't agree with that, and frankly, I think it's a little bit ridiculous. Have you ever considered trying to contact the authors or reviewers of this paper? Or actually asking an expert on the subject about this? You might get better results than from a random Comp-Sci dropout on a forum for Christians.

I haven't been following this thread over the past few days much. Could you cite the paper and maybe I can be of some help. But as for now, there are papers which do mention dates that they do not include in their data, but they also explain why such dates are not included. These are generally due to anomalies that are easily observed and explained. There mere mention and explanation demonstrates that they are not excluding data that they don't like. Anyone deliberately excluding data without a valid explanation would never get by peer review.