Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

The Cadet · Jun 17, 2015

Geochronology of the Carboniferous ,Permian, and Triassic - Forster, Warrington 1985
mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.full.pdf

Starting at post 597. For some reason, I can't access that paper any more. I should have saved it when I had the chance. :/

@RickG

Astrophile · Jun 17, 2015

lifepsyop said:
I did manage to dig up the full paper. [my notes in brackets]

Geochronology of the Carboniferous ,Permian, and Triassic - Forster, Warrington 1985
mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.full.pdf

.... here are some of Foster and Warrington's criteria for suitability of dating research. (criteria that the vast majority of those geochronologists reviewed failed to meet)]

"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."

[Here it is stated unequivocally that the fossils are the ultimate indicator of how old a particular rock layer should be. The evolutionary belief system (that different fossil assemblages represent subsequent evolutionary ages separated by millions of years) is the unquestionable dogma to which all geochronologists will bow, or they can find a new line of work.]

I know that this paper is about the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic systems. However, it seems to me that your objection doesn't apply to radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks, most of which don't contain fossils that are useful for biostratigraphy. Nevertheless, geologists have used radiometric dating to obtain a Precambrian chronology and to date individual rock formations, as well as igneous complexes and impact structures. Are you saying that because the rocks of, for example, the Bushveld complex are not intercalated with fossiliferous sediments the dating of these rocks at about 2050 million years is invalid? Alternatively, are you saying that the measured radiometric ages of the Bushveld rocks are only a few thousand years and that geologists have changed these ages to 2050 Myr in order to agree with their ideas of how old these rocks should be?

Loudmouth · Jun 17, 2015

Astrophile said:
I know that this paper is about the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic systems. However, it seems to me that your objection doesn't apply to radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks, most of which don't contain fossils that are useful for biostratigraphy.

As others have pointed out in the past, how do you think they date meteorites?

lifepsyop · Jun 17, 2015

Astrophile said:
I know that this paper is about the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic systems. However, it seems to me that your objection doesn't apply to radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks, most of which don't contain fossils that are useful for biostratigraphy. Nevertheless, geologists have used radiometric dating to obtain a Precambrian chronology and to date individual rock formations, as well as igneous complexes and impact structures. Are you saying that because the rocks of, for example, the Bushveld complex are not intercalated with fossiliferous sediments the dating of these rocks at about 2050 million years is invalid? Alternatively, are you saying that the measured radiometric ages of the Bushveld rocks are only a few thousand years and that geologists have changed these ages to 2050 Myr in order to agree with their ideas of how old these rocks should be?

Remember, the claim from evolutionists is that the dating of all, (or at least most) major geologic periods is scientifically ironclad and beyond dispute.

Though the more I study and debate this subject, the more I realize that the vast majority of evolutionists are simply spreading rumors they've heard or passing around sanitized "old-earth proof" pamphlets, and have themselves investigated the subject very little.

Loudmouth · Jun 17, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Remember, the claim from evolutionists is that the dating of all, (or at least most) major geologic periods is scientifically ironclad and beyond dispute.

Though the more I study and debate this subject, the more I realize that the vast majority of evolutionists are simply spreading rumors they've heard or passing around sanitized "old-earth proof" pamphlets, and have themselves investigated the subject very little.

How do you think they date meteorites?

The Cadet · Jun 17, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Remember, the claim from evolutionists is that the dating of all, (or at least most) major geologic periods is scientifically ironclad and beyond dispute.

Err, the way we got on this track was me asking whether you accepted the old-earth dates. So it is an entirely relevant question what the dating of other major geologic periods have to do with it.

Though the more I study and debate this subject, the more I realize that the vast majority of evolutionists are simply spreading rumors they've heard or passing around sanitized "old-earth proof" pamphlets, and have themselves investigated the subject very little.

Well, yeah. Most people are not trained scientists, and for the most part, these matters are complex and difficult. Which is why (hey let's boomerang back to the topic of the thread from the umpteen bazillionth time we've come away from it) I look to the experts.

Astrophile · Jun 17, 2015

Loudmouth said:
As others have pointed out in the past, how do you think they date meteorites?

Yes, obviously I should have mentioned meteorites, and the rocks that the Apollo astronauts brought back from the moon. Thank-you for reminding me.

Astrophile · Jun 17, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Remember, the claim from evolutionists is that the dating of all, (or at least most) major geologic periods is scientifically ironclad and beyond dispute.

Though the more I study and debate this subject, the more I realize that the vast majority of evolutionists are simply spreading rumors they've heard or passing around sanitized "old-earth proof" pamphlets, and have themselves investigated the subject very little.

This is not an answer to my questions. Also, it is geologists, not evolutionists, who measure the ages of rocks. There are plenty of books, not just pamphlets, that explain how rocks are dated, and that give the results of radiometric dating, both as time-scales for the geological periods, and as measurements of the ages of individual igneous intrusions, igneous complexes, and impact structures.

lifepsyop · Jun 18, 2015

Astrophile said:
This is not an answer to my questions. Also, it is geologists, not evolutionists, who measure the ages of rocks. There are plenty of books, not just pamphlets, that explain how rocks are dated, and that give the results of radiometric dating, both as time-scales for the geological periods, and as measurements of the ages of individual igneous intrusions, igneous complexes, and impact structures.

There are plenty of books that assert animal trait similarities are proof that they share a common ancestor. These are models, not proofs. They are often comprised of very complex and impressive methodology, but this does not change the fact that at their core they are based on major assumptions not found in evidence.

If we go back a couple decades, we would find the same confidence as we see today in geochronology and radiometric methodology "proving" geologic dating schemes. Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

In my observation, most old-earth believers are not aware of this. They are protected from this information because it would be damaging to their evolutionary faith. Each generation needs to be assured that their evolutionary beliefs are infallible as the "science vs religion" cultural mythos is carried to the next.

The Cadet · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
There are plenty of books that assert animal trait similarities are proof that they share a common ancestor. These are models, not proofs. They are often comprised of very complex and impressive methodology, but this does not change the fact that at their core they are based on major assumptions not found in evidence.

If we go back a couple decades, we would find the same confidence as we see today in geochronology and radiometric methodology "proving" geologic dating schemes. Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

In my observation, most old-earth believers are not aware of this. They are protected from this information because it would be damaging to their evolutionary faith.

Well, let's see that information then! You make very tall assertions here, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

lifepsyop · Jun 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
Well, let's see that information then! You make very tall assertions here, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

We've just spent the last several pages going over conclusions from the 1985 geochronology literature that only 9% of radiometric publications of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic periods were considered acceptable for review.

The Cadet · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
We've just spent the last several pages going over conclusions from the 1985 geochronology literature that only 9% of radiometric publications of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic periods were considered acceptable for review.

And if that's your answer, you've completely warped the reason for this. As you said:

Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

But that's not what's going on here! That's not even close!

Most of those publications rejected were because of data not published in the study. This is like if someone made a literature review about epidemiology involving PCR, and rejected every paper that did not include raw PCR data - you'd end up rejecting a whole lot of papers simply because they didn't feel it necessary to spend page after page after page in print literature going over data that any competent undergrad would have no trouble interpreting. It does not mean that the entire field was covered with methodological errors in the process of PCR in the past, it simply means that now, in the digital age, including such figures is trivial and expected, particularly after Wakefield's fraud. You're mistaking "excluding method data" with "excluding result data". This is not the first time I have explained this to you.

lifepsyop · Jun 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
And if that's your answer, you've completely warped the reason for this. As you said:

But that's not what's going on here! That's not even close!

Most of those publications rejected were because of data not published in the study. This is like if someone made a literature review about epidemiology involving PCR, and rejected every paper that did not include raw PCR data - you'd end up rejecting a whole lot of papers simply because they didn't feel it necessary to spend page after page after page in print literature going over data that any competent undergrad would have no trouble interpreting. It does not mean that the entire field was covered with methodological errors in the process of PCR in the past, it simply means that now, in the digital age, including such figures is trivial and expected, particularly after Wakefield's fraud. You're mistaking "excluding method data" with "excluding result data". This is not the first time I have explained this to you.

I'm showing you that there were major problems with old-earth dating models despite confidence in radiometric methodology.

The Cadet · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
I'm showing you that there were major problems with old-earth dating models despite confidence in radiometric methodology.

You're just showing me that you're incapable of reasonably interpreting the scientific literature. You started with quote-mines, then worked your way up to actually citing the peer-reviewed literature (badly), and now we're up to making ridiculous inferences that are somewhere between wrong and not even wrong. Look, I'm sorry, but if you want to contest a tool used extensively and constantly in paleontology, you're going to have to do better than that.

lifepsyop · Jun 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
You're just showing me that you're incapable of reasonably interpreting the scientific literature. You started with quote-mines, then worked your way up to actually citing the peer-reviewed literature (badly), and now we're up to making ridiculous inferences that are somewhere between wrong and not even wrong. Look, I'm sorry, but if you want to contest a tool used extensively and constantly in paleontology, you're going to have to do better than that.

These types of hand-waving posts of yours are too low on content to respond to.

The Cadet · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
These types of hand-waving posts of yours are too low on content to respond to.

Oh, you want content? Please provide evidence that radiometric dating, as it is currently used, is inaccurate or not to be trusted (why did you appeal to a paper from 30 years ago anyways?). Please provide evidence that the reason that paper excluded most of the studies they found were due to methodological errors, rather than missing methodological data or just not being applicable to the time frame they were searching for. Please show that the massive majority of paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and so forth who rely on radiometric dating are wrong to do so. Who knows, if you can show this convincingly and publish it in peer review, you might just be in for some serious laureates for advancing our understanding of reality!

Loudmouth · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
There are plenty of books that assert animal trait similarities are proof that they share a common ancestor.

They argue that it is the PATTERN of similarities that evidences evolution, with that pattern being a phylogeny.

These are models, not proofs.

When the observations fit the predictions made by the model, it is called "evidence".

If we go back a couple decades, we would find the same confidence as we see today in geochronology and radiometric methodology "proving" geologic dating schemes. Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

In my observation, most old-earth believers are not aware of this. They are protected from this information because it would be damaging to their evolutionary faith. Each generation needs to be assured that their evolutionary beliefs are infallible as the "science vs religion" cultural mythos is carried to the next.

How do they determine the age of meteorites and moon rocks?

SLP · Jun 18, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Scientific consensus: the belief the Milky-way was the entire universe, despite the fact the scientific consensus was wrong.

But shall we call that scientific consensus what it is? Belief and opinion?

Which it totally unlike religious belief.

SLP · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
There are plenty of books that assert animal trait similarities are proof that they share a common ancestor.

Name one. Page number if possible.

These are models, not proofs.

How is that a model?

They are often comprised of very complex and impressive methodology, but this does not change the fact that at their core they are based on major assumptions not found in evidence.

Explain.

Find one such model. Provide the "major assumptions" and demonstrate that these assumptions are invalid.

Your assumption is that the bible is true and accurate, is it not? Is that assumption found in evidence?

If we go back a couple decades, we would find the same confidence as we see today in geochronology and radiometric methodology "proving" geologic dating schemes. Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

Nice just so story.

In my observation, most old-earth believers are not aware of this. They are protected from this information because it would be damaging to their evolutionary faith. Each generation needs to be assured that their evolutionary beliefs are infallible as the "science vs religion" cultural mythos is carried to the next.

A great deal of rather comical projection there, but little substance. Your rants are entertaining, to be sure, but filled - literally filled - with an unwarranted confidence in your narrative's accuracy. Duning-Kruger effect aplenty.

Astrophile · Jun 18, 2015

lifepsyop said:
If we go back a couple decades, we would find the same confidence as we see today in geochronology and radiometric methodology "proving" geologic dating schemes. Yet eventually it was revealed that the methodology was flawed, and the majority of geochronology publications were tenuous at best.

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?

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?

Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

SO COOL

Newbie

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

SO COOL

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

SO COOL

Regular Member

SO COOL

Regular Member

SO COOL

Regular Member

SO COOL

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency