Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

Do you reject radiometric dating?

As indisputable proof of geologic deep-time? Of course.

If so, why?

Simple. Because any unwelcome radiometric "dates" may be blamed on nature and discarded and thus the methodology is never truly being tested. In general, Geochronology is ultimately governed by a subjective filtering process of "Does this result support my old-earth beliefs or not?"

 

[The Cadet]

As indisputable proof of geologic deep-time? Of course.



Simple. Because any unwelcome radiometric "dates" may be blamed on nature and discarded and thus the methodology is never truly being tested.

LOL. The fact that some dates are falsified through contamination does nothing to undermine the method. It's like saying that your laptop never works because it doesn't work when you run it right next to the electromagnet they use for lifting cars. When a method which, in theory, should be very robust starts giving completely nonsensical results, the first thing you do is not jettison the method completely, the first thing you do is check to see if there's any reason why the result would be that way. For example, the reservoir effect makes carbon-dating marine animals a basically futile task. This doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't provide robust results when examining land plants. Indeed, in many of these cases, we'd need to be wrong about the rate of radioactive decay in order for the method not to work. Obviously, it's far more likely that the samples have been somehow corrupted, and that's something that needs to be explored. Now, if no source of such corruption can be found, then we have a problem. But to date, the answer has never been "our understanding of how radiometric decay works is totally wrong", but rather "Oh, we're getting a wrong result because the sample has been contaminated".

It's like that time one of Kent Hovind's associates tried to carbon date a dinosaur fossil and came out with the result of 20,000 years. No scientist would ever do that. Why? Is it because they don't want their phony dates to be revealed? Err... Not quite. It's because carbon-dating a mineralized bone with no carbon in it is a misapplication of the method that will lead to nonsensical, meaningless results, and scientists understand the limitations and potential problems of these dating methods. (The 20,000 years result came from shellack on the bone.)

 

[lifepsyop]

LOL. The fact that some dates are falsified through contamination does nothing to undermine the method. It's like saying that your laptop never works because it doesn't work when you run it right next to the electromagnet they use for lifting cars. When a method which, in theory, should be very robust starts giving completely nonsensical results, the first thing you do is not jettison the method completely, the first thing you do is check to see if there's any reason why the result would be that way. For example, the reservoir effect makes carbon-dating marine animals a basically futile task. This doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't provide robust results when examining land plants. Indeed, in many of these cases, we'd need to be wrong about the rate of radioactive decay in order for the method not to work. Obviously, it's far more likely that the samples have been somehow corrupted, and that's something that needs to be explored. Now, if no source of such corruption can be found, then we have a problem. But to date, the answer has never been "our understanding of how radiometric decay works is totally wrong", but rather "Oh, we're getting a wrong result because the sample has been contaminated".

Unfavorable radiometric "dates" will always be blamed on something nature did, whether or not the source of contamination can be absolutely identified is not a problem. There can even be a consilience of bad "dates" resulting from multiple methods. They will still be discarded.

It's like that time one of Kent Hovind's associates tried to carbon date a dinosaur fossil and came out with the result of 20,000 years. No scientist would ever do that. Why? Is it because they don't want their phony dates to be revealed? Err... Not quite. It's because carbon-dating a mineralized bone with no carbon in it is a misapplication of the method that will lead to nonsensical, meaningless results, and scientists understand the limitations and potential problems of these dating methods. (The 20,000 years result came from shellack on the bone.)

You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.

 

[JasonClark]

You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.

Routinely found, I heard that as well.
I read that creationists got a pint of blood out of dinosaur remains that they found but after they had dug it up it was so hot it all evaporated.
If that's not evidence for a 10,000 year old earth nothing is, what more evidence do these people need?

Those Brits should not be allowed to ban creationism in their schools.
https://humanism.org.uk/2014/06/18/...es-free-schools-teaching-creationism-science/

 

[lasthero]

You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.

'Routinely'? Are you going to back up that statement? And I hope you're not talking about one or two or even five cases, because we've found thousands on thousands of dinosaur fossils, and when I think of the word 'routinely', i think, like, say...1 out of 5. That's quite a statement you just made.

And why only count dinosaur remains? What about the fossils from non-dinosaurs?

 

[The Cadet]

Unfavorable radiometric "dates" will always be blamed on something nature did, whether or not the source of contamination can be absolutely identified is not a problem. There can even be a consilience of bad "dates" resulting from multiple methods. They will still be discarded.

Well then let's hear some examples. I'm sure you have tons of examples where radiometric dating of a known object with appropriate qualities (using carbon dating on a fossil with no carbon in it is impossible because, again, there's no carbon in it) within the date range the method is accurate for (carbon dating, relying on the decay rate of C14, cannot reasonably be used for things beyond the age where the C14 would have vanished beyond our ability to measure it) has led to completely bogus results without a clear explanation of why the results are bogus.

You are clearly wrong as, non-mineralized original organic material are also routinely found in dinosaur remains. Time to update your arguments.

Boy, I hope you're not talking about Mary Schweitzer's paper, because she did not find non-mineralized organic material. Cite please?

 

[lifepsyop]

Well then let's hear some examples. I'm sure you have tons of examples where radiometric dating of a known object with appropriate qualities (using carbon dating on a fossil with no carbon in it is impossible because, again, there's no carbon in it) within the date range the method is accurate for (carbon dating, relying on the decay rate of C14, cannot reasonably be used for things beyond the age where the C14 would have vanished beyond our ability to measure it) has led to completely bogus results without a clear explanation of why the results are bogus.

I already told you that the explanation will be contamination. Obviously if you believe a rock is a certain age, and you get a contradictory "dating" result, then you're going to infer that the sample was contaminated.

Boy, I hope you're not talking about Mary Schweitzer's paper, because she did not find non-mineralized organic material. Cite please?

"Recently, still-soft biomaterials have been identified in bones of multiple taxa from the Cretaceous to the Recent, with morphological and molecular characteristics consistent with an endogenous source...

...Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation..."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741.short

 

[lasthero]

I already told you that the explanation will be contamination. Obviously if you believe a rock is a certain age, and you get a contradictory "dating" result, then you're going to infer that the sample was contaminated.





"Recently, still-soft biomaterials have been identified in bones of multiple taxa from the Cretaceous to the Recent, with morphological and molecular characteristics consistent with an endogenous source...

...Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation..."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741.short

Ignoring that this article goes on to explain why this is, the impression I got from reading it was this is still an extremely rare occurance, not 'routine' by any definition of the word. In fact, the article flat out says, in the first paragraph, that it's uncommon.

 

[The Cadet]

I already told you that the explanation will be contamination. Obviously if you believe a rock is a certain age, and you get a contradictory "dating" result, then you're going to infer that the sample was contaminated.

Okay, got an example where the contamination in question wasn't obvious?

Here's the problem. Radiometric dating is based on our understanding of how radioactive decay works, and our understand of how radioactive decay works is pretty darn robust. It's like if you're using a method, and it gives bizarre, weird results, and your options are "the sample was contaminated" or "gravity doesn't work". Obviously, there's something wrong with the sample, because we know that gravity works, just like we know radiometric isotopes decay at certain rates. What's more, we've come to understand when we can and cannot use these methods. So what point are you trying to make? You still haven't given any useful examples here.

"Recently, still-soft biomaterials have been identified in bones of multiple taxa from the Cretaceous to the Recent, with morphological and molecular characteristics consistent with an endogenous source...

...Multiple lines of evidence support the endogeneity of these recovered molecules in Cretaceous specimens, despite hypothesized temporal limits on molecular preservation..."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741.short

This says nothing about there still being carbon in them (is there? I have no idea), but even if there were, could it be carbon-dated? Well... No. Argon-Argon dating has placed these fossils at 65 million years ago; this is concordant both with the evolutionary timeline of life and the strata they are buried in. Carbon dating would most likely find that there is simply no measurable amount of C14 present, which means that it could be 100,000 years old or 100,000,000.

 

[RickG]

Because that's where they were deposited in sediment. If they weren't deposited there, then they'd be deposited somewhere else.

No, you are confusing the process with the end result.

For one thing, you are assuming "geologic time".

My assumptions are based on falsifiable physical evidence that are as verifiable as night and day. Conversely, you are making an assumption based on zero evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's because carbon-dating a mineralized bone with no carbon in it is a misapplication of the method...

Boy, I hope you're not talking about Mary Schweitzer's paper, because she did not find non-mineralized organic material. Cite please?

.........

This says nothing about there still being carbon in them (is there? I have no idea), but even if there were, could it be carbon-dated? Well... No. Argon-Argon dating has placed these fossils at 65 million years ago; this is concordant both with the evolutionary timeline of life and the strata they are buried in. Carbon dating would most likely find that there is simply no measurable amount of C14 present, which means that it could be 100,000 years old or 100,000,000.

Are you now retracting your claim that non-mineralized original organic material is not found in dinosaur remains?

Please clarify your position, because this was your initial argument against trying to carbon date dinosaur remains.

You should be able to admit when your arguments are wrong.

 

[lasthero]

Speaking of admitting when you're wrong, are you going to retract your statement that finding such things in fossils is a 'routine' occurance? Because nothing you've presented so far supports that.

And I'm still confused as to why we're only talking about dinosaur remains.

 

[RickG]

Are you now retracting your claim that non-mineralized original organic material is not found in dinosaur remains?

If you are referring to the dinosaur collogen, it was mineralized until it was put into a solvent for cleaning purposes.

Please clarify your position, because this was your initial argument against trying to carbon date dinosaur remains.

Only people with dishonest intentions would attempt to carbon date dinosaur remains. Any 14C in dinosaur remains would be either contaminated due to carelessness or deliberately done, unless it was in situ 14C which can be distinguished from cosmogenic 14C.

 

[Loudmouth]

I pointed out the fossils while you were still showing cartoons. (Now you're showing a close-up of Neil Shubin's face for some reason)

Until you address the fossils, there is nothing to talk about.

Pointing to concordance does not make discordance go away.

Remember the supposed "faster than light neutrinos" from a few years ago? Those were discordant. When you have a massive pile of concordant evidence and tiny little pile of discordant evidence, the most likely source of the error is experimental variation or error. The only important thing the FTL neutrinos taught us was to make sure your equipment is running properly.

Renowned astronomer, Halton Arp, compiled an entire catalog of discordant redshift data.
https://keychests.com/media/bigdisk/pdf/14855.pdf

They aren't discordant. Halton Arp falsely assumed that quasars were at the same distance as the galaxies next to them in pictures. In reality, it was the effect of forced perspective that caused them to appear to be at the same distance. It is the same trick used for this illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

When I say "evolutionists would accommodate the data like this", it is only following the natural ad-hoc pattern of reasoning and explanatory devices that evolutionists have displayed thus far so there is no reason why they wouldn't.

You are projecting your own propensity for ad-hoc explanations onto others. Your excuses for not finding fish in the earliest marine sediments is a perfect example.

You are inventing your own fantasies of what scientists would do with evidence that doesn't even exist, and using those fantasies as a reason to reject the theory of evolution. That's ridiculous.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfavorable radiometric "dates" will always be blamed on something nature did, whether or not the source of contamination can be absolutely identified is not a problem.

The sources of contamination have been identified.

 

[lifepsyop]

Okay, got an example where the contamination in question wasn't obvious?

Yes, geochronologists have admitted that "bad dates" are frequently rejected on the basis of simply not fitting into expected dating models. You are mistaken in assuming the actual source of contamination must be identified whenever a bad date appears.

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because on 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)

The uncritical use of such dates is a good illustration of why one should not nail down chronostratigraphic schemes with singular dates, no matter how "excellent," while ignoring other, analytically sound, and equally acceptable data that may not agree with our preconceptions (Haq et al. 1988 p. 602)

Here's the problem. Radiometric dating is based on our understanding of how radioactive decay works, and our understand of how radioactive decay works is pretty darn robust. It's like if you're using a method, and it gives bizarre, weird results, and your options are "the sample was contaminated" or "gravity doesn't work". Obviously, there's something wrong with the sample, because we know that gravity works, just like we know radiometric isotopes decay at certain rates. What's more, we've come to understand when we can and cannot use these methods.

I've already pointed out that a sample will be rejected if it returns unfavorable results. We both agree that a bad date will be assumed to be contaminated. You're not raising any new arguments here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, geochronologists have admitted that "bad dates" are frequently rejected on the basis of simply not fitting into expected dating models.

If you looked at 100 clocks in the same area and 99 of them said it was 10:05 am +/- 5 minutes, and then one clock said that it was 5:30 pm, would you discount the 5:30 pm? Would you use that one discordant time to argue that all clocks are untrustworthy?

 

[RickG]

I've already pointed out that a sample will be rejected if it returns unfavorable results. We both agree that a bad date will be assumed to be contaminated. You're not raising any new arguments here.

Have you visited my thread yet titled, "Dating methods keep getting better and better"?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dating-methods-continue-to-get-better-and-better.7890829/

 

[lasthero]

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because on 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)

The uncritical use of such dates is a good illustration of why one should not nail down chronostratigraphic schemes with singular dates, no matter how "excellent," while ignoring other, analytically sound, and equally acceptable data that may not agree with our preconceptions (Haq et al. 1988 p. 602)

I don't suppose you could actually post the links to the papers you got these quotes from, could you? I've been having a devil of a time finding them.