Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lasthero]

Actually, the dates are part of the belief system. They need to accredit great time with creating life! They couldn't very well claim we came from apes or monkeys in the recent past!

Did you read the rest of his post?

 

[RickG]

Actually, the dates are part of the belief system. They need to accredit great time with creating life! They couldn't very well claim we came from apes or monkeys in the recent past!

You totally missed the point. Dating methods are not dependent upon evolution, they are a completely different unrelated science. Dating methods still remain what they are whether evolution is true, false, or never even heard of. In fact, show fossils of rabbits in Cambrian strata and you will have disproved evolution by way of dating methods.

 

[dad]

Did you read the rest of his post?

Does that affect what I said? If so...explain.

 

[dad]

You totally missed the point. Dating methods are not dependent upon evolution, they are a completely different unrelated science.

Actually that is false they are part of evolution. The imaginary time and evolution replaces Christ as the mechanism for life. One CANNOT have the evolving without the time. Period. They are inseparable.

Dating methods still remain what they are whether evolution is true, false, or never even heard of.

No, the dating is religious rot and cannot be supported. That is what it is and what it will remain. The dates are absolutely part of the fable of evolution.

In fact, show fossils of rabbits in Cambrian strata and you will have disproved evolution by way of dating methods.

Foolish evo PRATT. I do not see any proof that we had this nature and our laws that allow fossilization. Therefore why assume rabbits and man and other things (except some creatures that we know could fossilize) would fossilize???? That is a belief based misnomer.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Peer-review's main effectiveness is in protecting the ideologies of the peers. It is generally a shoddy system in regards to weeding out error, fraud, and bias.

Does that apply to being religiously orthodox?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Okay, lets make it simple.

This image right her sums up what Old-Earth dating research actually is. Its primary purpose is to create models where the "dates" are calibrated with the Evolutionary creation story. If dates do not fit, then they cannot be "merged" into a cohesive model. The mission of geochronologists is to find support for the preformed conclusion of Evolutionary deep-time. That is the bottom line.

You can talk all day about the specific details of 'dating' methodology but at its core, the field is governed by the evolutionary faith and in the end all hypotheses and models must bow down to Evolution, regardless of the data.

You've just reiterated your belief with tje addition of a diagram. You have still presented me with nothing more than your conviction that discordant data will be discarded "whether or not contamination is identified". Would you please produce evidence to this effect rather than merely asserting that it must be so?

Also, you seem to have missed 90% of my post. Hopefully you were just short on time. Here it is again so you can respond properly:

But calcification occurs in living organisms. Why are you associating this with the collagen being 'mineralized' in the sense of being fossilized? From every test they ran they have concluded that the structures are virtually indistinguishable from actual protein.


You didn't answer my question. What exactly do you think they found?

I think they found what they claimed to. Calcified collagen fibres. The distinctionI was making is that this is not pliable tissue likethat discovered by Schweitzer via demineralizing fossil bone.

Schweitzer is extrapolating a laboratory environment-controlled 2 year experiment to 70,000,000 years with natural exposure to the elements. If that isn't speculation, I would like to know what your idea of speculation is.

Speculation is pure theorizing. Extrapolation is based on known facts. In this case Schweitzer is extrapolating from the empirically established fact that iron preserves tissue far longer than

tissue not similarly exposed. And it's worth noting, as I said before, that the tissues didn't take two years to rot, rather they had not really degraded at all.


Also remember that the argument is not necessarily that iron preserves tissue for millions of years. It may simply preserve tissue long enough for other fossilization processes to preserve them.


And your lack of comment on the point about how fast fossilization proponents make claims based on a process that is not actually the same process as fossilazation at all suggests you concede that such arguments are not comparable to Schweitzer's extrapolation as you claimed.

I haven't read Angstrom's critique.

Sorry, I meant Armitage.You didn't address my rebuttal to his video and so Iassume you concede that his points are as weak as I described.

Yes, but you know perfectly well such considerations are completely banned from discussion. Not only can the idea of dinosaurs being younger than previously thought not be discussed in a formal academic setting, but for a secular scientist to even communicate such an idea on a personal blog would possibly cost him his career, for both being a heretic and lending comfort to the enemy. Lets be honest. That is the politicized environment your camp has cultivated over the years.


So now this line of evidence that questions deep-time will be absorbed into deep-time. The next generation of students will grow up believing it has been proven that such organic material can potentially be preserved for hundreds of millions of years.


That is why your analogy below fails. It does not do service to the complex ad-hoc nature of deep-time/evolution models.


In principle you are correct, but equating the subject at hand with the cougar scenario is simplified to the point of being plain wrong.

You've just reiterated your opinion, not supported it. Why does your belief that any conflicting evidence will be absorbed into the theory change the logic of rejecting an old understanding in favour of several consilient lines of evidence that show that understanding is flawed?

Yes, sources of contamination are studied in some cases. That doesn't really change my argument, that old-earth geologic dating models are constructed based on whether or not the data agrees with evolution. Data that does not fit with the evolutionary model will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified. It has to be.

But you have not substantiated that claim I'm any way. You have provided no evidence that certain data "will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified". This is especially problematic for you because someone who has actually done work in the field has told you otherwise.

But the interpretations that established an old-earth view were wrong. And also it can be argued that the idea of an old-earth was becoming philosophically fashionable by the intelligentsia of this time who held considerable sway over scholarly institutions. (much like the ideological push for Darwinian Evolution a few decades later) The actual scientific data is only part of the equation. On both sides we are dealing with men with beliefs.


Anyways. regardless of its inception, the fact is that nobody has been allowed to question deep-time for generations. Hypotheses and models must conform to evolutionary beliefs or be discarded. There is no other option.

The early calculations of Earth's age were inaccurate, but they were generally based on data that showed at the very least that the Earth was not a few thousand years old. So your suggestion that such notions were fashionable is really describing an effect rather than a cause. Despite early inaccuracies, the fact remains that early Old Earth proponents had to and did by the strength of the evidence overcome the traditional notion that the earth was only a few thousand years old.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are generalizing, there are many biologists that claim the appearance of design is actuta design.

The ones you quoted here don't.
And I submit that the ovewhelming majority doesn't either.

I have not been dishonest at all and have said what they have said that the appearance is due to an illusion, which is EXACTLY what they say.

But you don't seem to understand what it means. Or you ignore what it means.
You trust their opinion as biologists when they something that you can reconcile with your belief. So when they say there is an appearance of design, then you jump on it. And when they then continue with "and here's why it's only mere appearance...", you tune out.

Right some of them do and other do not.

Are we really going to pretend as if the scientific community doesn't practically universally considers evolution theory to be accurate?

Prove where I have been dishonest or apologize.

You present the quotes of these people as if they support your idea of actual design. The don't. They do the opposite.

 

[RickG]

But you don't seem to understand what it means. Or you ignore what it means. You trust their opinion as biologists when they something that you can reconcile with your belief. So when they say there is an appearance of design, then you jump on it. And when they then continue with "and here's why it's only mere appearance...", you tune out.

You present the quotes of these people as if they support your idea of actual design. The don't. They do the opposite.

That's an excellent description of what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty".

 

[bhsmte]

That's an excellent description of what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty".

Yes, it sure is.

All driven by; denial and confirmation bias, to protect something very important to the psyche.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The ones you quoted here don't.

Which is exactly what I said.

I have been VERY VERY clear that they don't. I've presented their quotes in context. I have included where they say that the appearance of design is an illusion.

And I submit that the ovewhelming majority doesn't either.

This is an argument ad populum first of all and perhaps more importantly, Science is a observation of the natural world and in Science the supernatural is never put forward as a possibility as it isn't what Science is about. Scientists hold certain worldviews and are not free from personal bias either and for Dawkins and Crick they are very outspoken atheists who make their beliefs well known. It would go against their well known views to claim that the design we see in life forms is actual Design.

In fact, in an interview Dawkins said he would rather believe design was from extraterrestrial's before believing a God designed life on earth. I believe that Crick takes this option seriously.

But you don't seem to understand what it means. Or you ignore what it means.
You trust their opinion as biologists when they something that you can reconcile with your belief. So when they say there is an appearance of design, then you jump on it. And when they then continue with "and here's why it's only mere appearance...", you tune out.

Let me set you straight on why I "trust" their claims that life appears designed; it is very clear when looking at the incredible functional mechanisms in life forms to understand they appear designed for a purpose. The fact that Dawkins and Crick admit this, shows the undeniable features of design and they know that there are biologists out there that know this as well as they do. The next element in this scenario is their conclusion that this apparent design is an illusion which is due to their personal biases rather than any evidence provided. They have spun stories about how such an appearance is there. On one hand we have actual evidence, the purposeful function in life forms which is undeniable and on the other personal bias with no evidence to support it.

Are we really going to pretend as if the scientific community doesn't practically universally considers evolution theory to be accurate?

I am not pretending anything of the sort. There are different parts of TOE that some are questioning and to act as if there are no scientists that have them is misrepresenting them.

You present the quotes of these people as if they support your idea of actual design. The don't. They do the opposite.

I have never implied they support my idea of actual design. Provide any quote where I have implied or presented that these people I have quoted believe design is actual or apologize.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's an excellent description of what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty".

I repeat:

Let me set you straight on why I "trust" their claims that life appears designed; it is very clear when looking at the incredible functional mechanisms in life forms to understand they appear designed for a purpose. The fact that Dawkins and Crick admit this, shows the undeniable features of design and they know that there are biologists out there that know this as well as they do. The next element in this scenario is their conclusion that this apparent design is an illusion which is due to their personal biases rather than any evidence provided. They have spun stories about how such an appearance is there. On one hand we have actual evidence, the purposeful function in life forms which is undeniable and on the other personal bias with no evidence to support it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it sure is.

All driven by; denial and confirmation bias, to protect something very important to the psyche.

Provide evidence that my position is based on denial and confirmation bias and that it is important to my psyche.

 

[RickG]

I repeat:

Let me set you straight on why I "trust" their claims that life appears designed; it is very clear when looking at the incredible functional mechanisms in life forms to understand they appear designed for a purpose. The fact that Dawkins and Crick admit this, shows the undeniable features of design and they know that there are biologists out there that know this as well as they do. The next element in this scenario is their conclusion that this apparent design is an illusion which is due to their personal biases rather than any evidence provided. They have spun stories about how such an appearance is there. On one hand we have actual evidence, the purposeful function in life forms which is undeniable and on the other personal bias with no evidence to support it.

Frankly, I don't care whether anyone accepts ID or not, or accepts evolution or not. What I was commenting on was what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty". It is not a derogatory term. It is a term that describes the work of a person or persons who present information that appears to support ones position, while ignoring the information that does not support their position. It can be deliberate, not deliberate, or a combination of the two.

An example of this would be for someone to state that "the ATTA method of dating utilizing *85Kr, 39Ar, 81Kr is unreliable because contamination can occur in radiometric dating". What I have just stated in italics is an intellectually dishonest statement on several levels. In fact, if someone took that statement and attributed to me expressing doubt upon radiometric dating without providing the full context of my example, it would not only be intellectually dishonest as well, but it would be deliberate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Frankly, I don't care whether anyone accepts ID or not, or accepts evolution or not. What I was commenting on was what the scientific community views as "intellectual dishonesty". It is not a derogatory term. It is a term that describes the work of a person or persons who present information that appears to support ones position, while ignoring the information that does not support their position. It can be deliberate, not deliberate, or a combination of the two.

An example of this would be for someone to state that "the ATTA method of dating utilizing *85Kr, 39Ar, 81Kr is unreliable because contamination can occur in radiometric dating". What I have just stated in italics is an intellectually dishonest statement on several levels. In fact, if someone took that statement and attributed to me expressing doubt upon radiometric dating without providing the full context of my example, it would not only be intellectually dishonest as well, but it would be deliberate.

Where have I ignored scientific evidence that is not supporting of my position? What evidence have I ignored that Dawkins or Crick have presented to support their claims that design in life forms is an illusion. If you have such evidence please present it.

 

[RickG]

Where have I ignored scientific evidence that is not supporting of my position? What evidence have I ignored that Dawkins or Crick have presented to support their claims that design in life forms is an illusion. If you have such evidence please present it.

Good Grief.

1. In post #1388, I pointed out what DogmaHunter stated in post #1387 as to what that was a description of. That neither means I agree nor disagree with what you said. It was the process he described that I elaborated on.

2. In you post #1391 you quote me as if I was targeting your comment, I was not. In post #1393 I responded to you making it very clear that my interests are not in intelligent design or evolution, nor do I care whether anyone accepts or rejects either one. I then continued by providing an "intellectually dishonest" statement concerning the ATTA dating method, which was a demonstration of the process. And for what its worth, I purposely did not include the reason why my "italicized" statement was intellectually dishonest, because I want those who think dating methods are unreliable to try and figure out the problem(s) with it, as at face value it looks pretty legit.

Now, previously a while back, I did ask you what "you" meant by design. That is your concept or definition in one sentence. I then received links to and a dialogue about Dawkins and Crick. I replied by stating that I don't care about their concept or anyone else, only yours because I wanted to respond to "your" concept as you see it. After that it still took a couple more requests for "your" concept, to which I finally got some vague idea. With that I tried to begin with basic science describing design in inanimate objects, to which I was going to progress on to animate objects. But for some reason, you just can't seem to respond to direct and very specific questions. Thus, I abandoned the attempted discussion and will remain divorced from it as it was fruitless.

 

[bhsmte]

Good Grief.

1. In post #1388, I pointed out what DogmaHunter stated in post #1387 as to what that was a description of. That neither means I agree nor disagree with what you said. It was the process he described that I elaborated on.

2. In you post #1391 you quote me as if I was targeting your comment, I was not. In post #1393 I responded to you making it very clear that my interests are not in intelligent design or evolution, nor do I care whether anyone accepts or rejects either one. I then continued by providing an "intellectually dishonest" statement concerning the ATTA dating method, which was a demonstration of the process. And for what its worth, I purposely did not include the reason why my "italicized" statement was intellectually dishonest, because I want those who think dating methods are unreliable to try and figure out the problem(s) with it, as at face value it looks pretty legit.

Now, previously a while back, I did ask you what "you" meant by design. That is your concept or definition in one sentence. I then received links to and a dialogue about Dawkins and Crick. I replied by stating that I don't care about their concept or anyone else, only yours because I wanted to respond to "your" concept as you see it. After that it still took a couple more requests for "your" concept, to which I finally got some vague idea. With that I tried to begin with basic science describing design in inanimate objects, to which I was going to progress on to animate objects. But for some reason, you just can't seem to respond to direct and very specific questions. Thus, I abandoned the attempted discussion and will remain divorced from it as it was fruitless.

I bet you never imagined, that a straight forward discussion back and forth could be so difficult.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good Grief.

1. In post #1388, I pointed out what DogmaHunter stated in post #1387 as to what that was a description of. That neither means I agree nor disagree with what you said. It was the process he described that I elaborated on.

2. In you post #1391 you quote me as if I was targeting your comment, I was not. In post #1393 I responded to you making it very clear that my interests are not in intelligent design or evolution, nor do I care whether anyone accepts or rejects either one. I then continued by providing an "intellectually dishonest" statement concerning the ATTA dating method, which was a demonstration of the process. And for what its worth, I purposely did not include the reason why my "italicized" statement was intellectually dishonest, because I want those who think dating methods are unreliable to try and figure out the problem(s) with it, as at face value it looks pretty legit.

You couldn't have just said that you were commenting on Intellectual Dishonesty in general and not in connection with me? Seems it would have been much more to the point.

Now, previously a while back, I did ask you what "you" meant by design. That is your concept or definition in one sentence. I then received links to and a dialogue about Dawkins and Crick. I replied by stating that I don't care about their concept or anyone else, only yours because I wanted to respond to "your" concept as you see it. After that it still took a couple more requests for "your" concept, to which I finally got some vague idea.

You consider this a "vague" idea? I answered right you made it clear you wanted my take on it.

Post #1256 :
RickG said: ↑
No, the point is I am trying to understand "your" perception of what you mean by design so I can respond properly in context to your posts concerning "design". If you do not wish to provide your specific perception, then please say so and dispense with the obfuscation. Thank you.

I said:
I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.

With that I tried to begin with basic science describing design in inanimate objects, to which I was going to progress on to animate objects. But for some reason, you just can't seem to respond to direct and very specific questions. Thus, I abandoned the attempted discussion and will remain divorced from it as it was fruitless.

Post #1265
Oncedeceived said: ↑
What do you mean by inanimate?
RickG said:
Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?

Post #1266
RickG said: ↑
Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?
I said:
I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.

Post #1269
RickG said: ↑
So there is no design in Elements, Isotopes, Molecules, or Compounds?
I said:
I am not referring to them specifically in regard to the systems being discussed. All "things" are made up of matter and matter of elements and so forth.

Post #1282
RickG said: ↑
Thus animate objects are made up of inanimate objects? Yes, we are talking about the same thing, I'm just starting at the very base, or genesis if you prefer. By what mechanism are these basic inanimate objects derived?
I said:
We are discussing evidence and while I totally understand that these systems have basic fundamental elements and are in the whole designed system there is no evidence that we can point to as design for them.

Post #1288
RickG said: ↑
If you are going to invoke design, you must include everything, not just what you want.
I said:
Design is already invoked and not by me but by the biologists that work in the field.

Post #1306
RickG said: ↑
Again, I'm referring to what your are saying, not biologists.
Heavens and earth are the universe? Let's look at Genesis 1:1 and 7-8.
I said:
Take a look at this:
http://news.discovery.com/space/in-the-beginning-the-universe-was-a-liquid.htm

I must have missed your first part of the sentence and we then went on to discuss the Genesis differences. However, as you can see I answered your questions and I discussed everything you provided. Don't you think you are being a little unfair in your account of how I have posted in this discussion?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And since she didn't dissolve them away when finding them by accident - we can pretty well assume she wasn't using too strong a solution to begin with.

Oh! You agree preservation is excellent? Then why did you previously say it wasn't?

. . . So how about you first show radiometric dating is reliable beyond 60,000 years max? And yes, that also includes the other dating methods which use the same formula's found to violate parity long ago - and was just never revised when the electroweak theory was.

You seem to think radioactive decay rates are determined by theoretical analysis. Radioactive decay rates are determined by measuring them. This measurement would not change were there to be a change in the theory of what happens within the atoms when they decay. Revision of electroweak theory, then, would not change the rate of decay used in determining dates.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is exactly what I said.
I have been VERY VERY clear that they don't. I've presented their quotes in context. I have included where they say that the appearance of design is an illusion.

Then why are the quotes even relevant?
Why would you quote a biologists to make a point which is the exact opposite of the point in the quote?

What purpose did these quotes serve in your arguments?
Why are they important for your argument, considering they state the opposite of what you state?

This is an argument ad populum

No, it's not.
It's an appeal to expertise. Note: expertise. Not authority.
There's nothing wrong with an appeal to expertise.

Science is a observation of the natural world

No. Science is a method to study phenomena in an attempt to explain them.

and in Science the supernatural is never put forward as a possibility as it isn't what Science is about

The only reason why the supernatural is not put forward as a possibility in science is because it can't be shown to be a possibility, let alone a plausibility.

The supernatural is ignored because of how it is defined. The way it is defined, it is unfalsifiable, untestable.

Untestable, unfalsifiable claims are a waste of time. Always - not just in science.
They are infinit in number. By very definition, one can NOT differentiate truth from fiction when the claim is unfalsifiable / untestable.

This means that there is no rational justification to accept the claim in question.

Scientists hold certain worldviews and are not free from personal bias either and for Dawkins and Crick they are very outspoken atheists who make their beliefs well known.

The fact that it is irrational to accept unfalsifiable claims has nothing to do with worldviews and everything with rational reason and logic.

Also, to hint that Dawkins' view on biology is somehow related to him not believing in bronze-age religions is kind of juvenile. And pretty ignorant considering there are many, many theists who have no qualms with mainstream biology at all. Plenty of them are on this forum as well.

It would go against their well known views to claim that the design we see in life forms is actual Design.

The projection is hilarious.

Nothing about Dawkins' worldview excludes the possibility that life was designed by, for example, extra terrestials.

However, YOUR (dogmatic, faith-based) worldview DOES exclude the possibility that the appearance of design is exactly that: mere appearance, but not actual.

In fact, in an interview Dawkins said he would rather believe design was from extraterrestrial's before believing a God designed life on earth.

Is this refering to the incredibly dishonest "interview" from Ben Stein in his "documentary" Expelled?

If it is, I can only laugh.
If it's not, please provide a bit more info.

Let me set you straight on why I "trust" their claims that life appears designed; it is very clear when looking at the incredible functional mechanisms in life forms to understand they appear designed for a purpose. The fact that Dawkins and Crick admit this, shows the undeniable features of design and they know that there are biologists out there that know this as well as they do.

See? Exactly as I said.

You TUNE OUT when they actually explain it.
You pretend as if their quotes and ideas support your point, but they do the opposite.

The next element in this scenario is their conclusion that this apparent design is an illusion which is due to their personal biases rather than any evidence provided.

No... again with the misrepresentation...
It's not "their" conclusion. It's the conclusion of the field of biology. You know, like....... evolution theory. You get that scientific theories are explanations, right?
That's what evolution does... it explains why life looks the way it does.

It's not something Dawkins "believes" like you believe in your religion.
It's just science...

They have spun stories about how such an appearance is there. On one hand we have actual evidence, the purposeful function in life forms which is undeniable and on the other personal bias with no evidence to support it.

Again: evolution theory. Science. No "personal beliefs", no "worldviews", no "doctrines", no "faith". Just... science. Biology.

There are different parts of TOE that some are questioning and to act as if there are no scientists that have them is misrepresenting them.

Evolution is questioned all the time - just like every other theory. But not in the way you are pretending here.

I have never implied they support my idea of actual design.

Then what is the purpose of quoting Dawkins, who's quotes state the opposite of what you argue for?

Provide any quote where I have implied or presented that these people I have quoted believe design is actual or apologize.

I said that you imply that the quotes support your position. I didn't say they you implied that Dawkins himself supports your position.

I'm talking about the statements. You abuse the statements by implying that stating that there is an appearance of design supports the idea that there is actual design.

If that is not what you are implying, then why mention the quotes in the first place?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where have I ignored scientific evidence that is not supporting of my position?

Every time when you imply that the "appearance of design" supports the idea of "actual design".

Every time you do that, you ignore the explanation (known as Evolution Theory) of why things appear to be designed for the niche they live in.

Evolution explains why this is so. You ignore it.

What evidence have I ignored that Dawkins or Crick have presented to support their claims that design in life forms is an illusion. If you have such evidence please present it.

It's called evolution theory.
Evolution theory explains the "designs" of species.
The evidence for evolution theory is overwhelming.

Ignoring it, doesn't make it go away.