Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

The sources of contamination have been identified.

In general yes, samples are known to be prone to all sorts of contamination.

That is why geochronologists will feel justified in discarding the dating results that do not agree with their favored timeline.

That is why radiometric dating is ultimately governed by the confirmation bias of the geochronologist.

Good date? Credit dating method.
Bad date? Blame nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

In general yes, samples are known to be prone to all sorts of contamination.

That is why geochronologists will feel justified in discarding the dating results that do not agree with their favored timeline.

"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

So how do you explain the consilience between these samples, all 187 of them?

 

[RickG]

In general yes, samples are known to be prone to all sorts of contamination.

Yes, and geochemists know how to identify those problems and avoid them.

That is why geochronologists will feel justified in discarding the dating results that do not agree with their favored timeline.

That is a completely false statement.

That is why radiometric dating is ultimately governed by the confirmation bias of the geochronologist.

Good date? Credit dating method.
Bad date? Blame nature.

The only confirmation bias is by you. Now, what academically accredited institution was it that you studied geochmistry?

 

[lifepsyop]

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?

But why assume radiometric discordance is rare?

In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)

206Pb/238U, 207Pb/238U, 207Pb/206Pb, and 208Pb,232Th will agree, provided that there are no geologic complications such as xenocrystic material in the sample. However, rarely do all the calculated ages agree. (Stern et all. 1981, p.5)

Natural zircon typically displays an inconsistency (discordance) of age values obtained on the basis of the 206Pb/238U, 207Pb/235U, and 207Pb/206Pb isotopic ratios. (Levchenkov et all 1998, p. 1006)

The isotopic systematics of zircon populations from most Salinian composite terrane granitoids can be described with a single word: discordant. (Mattinson 1990, p. 244)

When determined by several methos (K-Ar, Rb-Sr and fission track) radiometric ages for coexisting minerals in a metamorphic or igneous rock generally differ because of different closure temperatures for retention of daughter products or tracks. (Itaya and Takasugi 1988, p. 281)

Sounds more like your "clocks" say all sorts of different things, and that you choose the ones that agree with your conclusions.

And since favorable "dates" are the ones that are more typically published, it creates the misconception that radiometric discordance is only very rare.

 

[lasthero]

Hey, lifepsyop, could you provide actual links to these quotes instead of just dropping them bare?

 

[The Cadet]

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)

Yeah, I can't do anything with "(Odin 1985 pp.42-43)". With Haq et al. 1988 I can at least find what I think is the right document, although given the complete dearth of information, I'm honestly not sure (I couldn't find the word "uncritical" in it, so probably not). Look, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need more information than that. Where were these papers published? Do you have links to them? Is there anywhere I can read the quote in context? I'm sorry, I've just seen so many creationists blatantly quote-mine established scientists that I'm not going to take partial or broken quotes like this seriously, and I can't find your original sources to check them. So I'm gonna second Lasthero's request. Not that I'm doubting your extensive conspiracy theory wherein scientists almost universally accept something towards the public, then badmouth it behind closed doors in the peer-reviewed literature where everyone can see it...

 

[lifepsyop]

Yeah, I can't do anything with "(Odin 1985 pp.42-43)". With Haq et al. 1988 I can at least find what I think is the right document, although given the complete dearth of information, I'm honestly not sure (I couldn't find the word "uncritical" in it, so probably not). Look, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna need more information than that. Where were these papers published? Do you have links to them? Is there anywhere I can read the quote in context? I'm sorry, I've just seen so many creationists blatantly quote-mine established scientists that I'm not going to take partial or broken quotes like this seriously, and I can't find your original sources to check them. So I'm gonna second Lasthero's request.

They are references taken from John Woodmorappes "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" where he scoured hundreds of journal articles from the Geochronology literature.

Woodmorappe's writings have been heavily scrutinized by old-earth proponents, so rest assured they would have easily caught him if he were fabricating quotes.

So, sorry, but you'll have to deal with the fact that geochronologists did write those things.

 

[lasthero]

They are references taken from John Woodmorappes "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" where he scoured hundreds of journal articles from the Geochronology literature.

Woodmorappe's writings have been heavily scrutinized by old-earth proponents, so rest assured they would have easily caught him if he were fabricating quotes.

So, sorry, but you'll have to deal with the fact that geochronologists did write those things.

So you've never read these quotes in context?

 

[RickG]

But why assume radiometric discordance is rare?

In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)

Nice misrepresentation of that paper. Yes, numerous samples were taken for dating. What your source deliberately leaves out is that what Kamo et al. 1996, are doing is establishing a minimum age for the Siberian flood-basalts, thus the other dates are irrelevant to the study, which doesn't mean they were bad dates.

Do I need to point out the misrepresentations of the citations you provided as well. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why do "creation scientists" feel the need to deliberately misrepresent science to support their beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

But why assume radiometric discordance is rare?

In their review of the geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic Periods, Forster and Warrington (1985) accepted only forty-five dated items from five hundred separate articles... (Kamo et al. 1996, p.3505)

206Pb/238U, 207Pb/238U, 207Pb/206Pb, and 208Pb,232Th will agree, provided that there are no geologic complications such as xenocrystic material in the sample. However, rarely do all the calculated ages agree. (Stern et all. 1981, p.5)

Natural zircon typically displays an inconsistency (discordance) of age values obtained on the basis of the 206Pb/238U, 207Pb/235U, and 207Pb/206Pb isotopic ratios. (Levchenkov et all 1998, p. 1006)

The isotopic systematics of zircon populations from most Salinian composite terrane granitoids can be described with a single word: discordant. (Mattinson 1990, p. 244)

When determined by several methos (K-Ar, Rb-Sr and fission track) radiometric ages for coexisting minerals in a metamorphic or igneous rock generally differ because of different closure temperatures for retention of daughter products or tracks. (Itaya and Takasugi 1988, p. 281)

Sounds more like your "clocks" say all sorts of different things, and that you choose the ones that agree with your conclusions.

And since favorable "dates" are the ones that are more typically published, it creates the misconception that radiometric discordance is only very rare.

More nuggets from the quote mine. As Rick G shows above, you will go to great lengths to lie about what is in those papers.

 

[The Cadet]

They are references taken from John Woodmorappes "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" where he scoured hundreds of journal articles from the Geochronology literature.

Woodmorappe's writings have been heavily scrutinized by old-earth proponents, so rest assured they would have easily caught him if he were fabricating quotes.

Err, not to burst your bubble, but are you for real?! Just googling gave me countless articles where real scientists pointed out how horrendous his quotemining is! He has been heavily scrutinized, but what you seem to imply is that people couldn't find the flaws in his work. They found more than flaws, they found outright lies.

This is why I ask for sources, because now that I know where you're getting this stuff from, it's a lot easier to find the papers in question (for some reason, real scientific sources find it a lot easier to directly link to the paper in question and provide the quote in context). And most of the time, it's a matter of creationists either not understanding or intentionally misquoting the scientific literature in the hopes of deceiving a gullible audience - in other words: you.

 

[RickG]

Err, not to burst your bubble, but are you for real?! Just googling gave me countless articles where real scientists pointed out how horrendous his quotemining is! He has been heavily scrutinized, but what you seem to imply is that people couldn't find the flaws in his work. They found more than flaws, they found outright lies.

This is why I ask for sources, because now that I know where you're getting this stuff from, it's a lot easier to find the papers in question (for some reason, real scientific sources find it a lot easier to directly link to the paper in question and provide the quote in context). And most of the time, it's a matter of creationists either not understanding or intentionally misquoting the scientific literature in the hopes of deceiving a gullible audience - in other words: you.

Amen!

 

[The Cadet]

And just to expand on that, what's even the point? That scientists, who are overwhelmingly stating that this stuff works, "secretly" have huge doubts and are ignoring the data just because? And then they're publishing these huge doubts in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone can read it? It makes no sense.

 

[lasthero]

And just to expand on that, what's even the point? That scientists, who are overwhelmingly stating that this stuff works, "secretly" have huge doubts and are ignoring the data just because? And then they're publishing these huge doubts in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone can read it? It makes no sense.

Conspiracy theorists rarely put that much thought into their arguments. They have to cite someone, but creationist literature rarely has any independent research.

Come to think of it, why aren't creationists dating things? If researchers are just throwing out dates that don't fit their bias or whatever, why not just date things themselves and show how unreliable it is?

 

[lifepsyop]

Nice misrepresentation of that paper. Yes, numerous samples were taken for dating. What your source deliberately leaves out is that what Kamo et al. 1996, are doing is establishing a minimum age for the Siberian flood-basalts, thus the other dates are irrelevant to the study, which doesn't mean they were bad dates.

I'm not sure what you mean because the quote was concerning Forster and Warrington's 1985 work.

Geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic
"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considred unacceptable by present standards."

http://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.short

Dates that do not give preferred results are filtered out of consideration.

 

[RickG]

I'm not sure what you mean because the quote was concerning Forster and Warrington's 1985 work.

Geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic
"Criteria concerning sample and analytical data and stratigraphic control have been used in a critical assessment of the suitability, for use in construction of a Phancrozoic time-scale, of radiometric data relevant to the Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic periods. Few of the age determinations available in 1982 satisfy these criteria and many of those used previously as a basis for time-scales for this part of the Phanerozoic are considred unacceptable by present standards."

http://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/10/1/99.short

Dates that do not give preferred results are filtered out of consideration.

I mean the quote you provided is a quote mine. A misrepresentation of what you presented it to be. Your assertion is bogus. No dates were disregarded. If they were disregarded, then why were they reported in the paper?

 

[lifepsyop]

More nuggets from the quote mine. As Rick G shows above, you will go to great lengths to lie about what is in those papers.

It's probably against forum rules to call people liars. I wouldn't really care except I've already been banned for far less.

 

[lasthero]

I can't help but notice you're completely avoiding Loudmouth's post with the consillient dates, Ops.

 

[lifepsyop]

I mean the quote you provided is a quote mine. A misrepresentation of what you presented it to be. Your assertion is bogus. No dates were disregarded. If they were disregarded, then why were they reported in the paper?

When researchers write that "few of the age determinations available" were suitable for construction of a geologic timeline, what does that mean to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

When researchers write that "few of the age determinations available" were suitable for construction of a geologic timeline, what does that mean to you?

It means that they were irrelevant for that geologic timeline. Carbon dating of lake varves from the last 10k years are going to be irrelevant for dating the Deccan traps. That doesn't mean that the carbon dating of the lake varves is wrong.