Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[The Cadet]

If scientists believe they have a reliable dating model for part of a geologic timeline, then contradictory results are going to be assumed to be from contamination and discarded. I have already presented an admission from the literature that certain dates are deemed inferior because they disagree with dating models that are considered reliable. The discordance may be inspected and reported on, or it may not. That is up to the scientist.

Again, none of this is surprising. The more reliable a model is perceived to be, (old-earth ages are considered sacrosanct) the more apt scientists will be to discard data that disagrees with it, especially if they have plausible reasons to do so. (high potential for contamination)



My claims are both supported by statements made by geochronologists (I am satisfied that they meant what they said, if you want to say it is all quote-mined, then have a blast), and the observations of normal human behavior and confirmation bias.

Interesting that you are now making veiled threats to have me banned. These kinds of reactions are how I know I'm dealing with an evolutionary creation religion. Nobody would ever get this upset about science.

Lies in bold. That's literally the only response you're worth at this point. You've been given every opportunity to support your claims and you have refused over and over and over again, deigning instead to take the word of a known liar and slander the reputation of numerous scientists. When you see fit to actually read the papers you're slandering, let me know.

 

[RickG]

If scientists believe they have a reliable dating model for part of a geologic timeline, then contradictory results are going to be assumed to be from contamination and discarded. I have already presented an admission from the literature that certain dates are deemed inferior because they disagree with dating models that are considered reliable. The discordance may be inspected and reported on, or it may not. That is up to the scientist.

The problem is you are presenting them as being thrown out because they are not what the research team is looking for. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is what you need to acknowledge, rather than a sublime "oh yes they do and we never know".

Again, none of this is surprising. The more reliable a model is perceived to be, (old-earth ages are considered sacrosanct) the more apt scientists will be to discard data that disagrees with it, especially if they have plausible reasons to do so. (high potential for contamination)

You are only demonstrating your ignorance of on the subject. What concerns me is that you continue to be unwilling to learn. There are no perceived ages in dating methods. If there were, then why date anything? Just make it up. That is what your are implying.

My claims are both supported by statements made by geochronologists (I am satisfied that they meant what they said, if you want to say it is all quote-mined, then have a blast), and the observations of normal human behavior and confirmation bias.

They most certainly are not. What you have presented are quote mines misrepresenting the full context of what professional geochronologists have said. This has been pointed out to you many times.

Interesting that you are now making veiled threats to have me banned. These kinds of reactions are how I know I'm dealing with an evolutionary creation religion.

This discussion is not about evolution nor I don't care whether you accept or evolution or not. It is about geologic dating methods and claims you continue to make that I know are wrong. And not know are wrong from what I read via Google, but from an actual academic background and experience.

Nobody would ever get this upset about science.

They do when they see a field of science of with they are trained and have experience being misrepresented and trashed. Yes, I am very upset to see a fellow Christian behaving in this manner.

 

[lifepsyop]

Lies in bold. That's literally the only response you're worth at this point.

Is your goal to get the thread locked due to posters not being able to control their emotions? That's a good way to shut down discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

Is your goal to get the thread locked due to posters not being able to control their emotions? That's a good way to shut down discussion.

Why don't you start by supporting your claim, that researchers toss out results they don't like?

Unless you do so, one must come to the conclusion.............................

 

[lasthero]

Is your goal to get the thread locked due to posters not being able to control their emotions? That's a good way to shut down discussion.

You've pretty much flat out stated that no matter what evidence is presented in support of an old earth, you'll dismiss it. You're the one who's shutting down discussion. There's very little point in arguing with someone who'll handwave away anything that's presented to him, no matter what.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is your goal to get the thread locked due to posters not being able to control their emotions? That's a good way to shut down discussion.

Using dishonest quote mines is what is going to get the thread locked down. Please stop.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected.

Measurements with contamination are irrelevant data.

For example, we are shown snazzy little diagrams like this one posted earlier.

This is gospel to old-earth believers. They look at those numbers and marvel at how agreeable the dates are and are beside themselves that anyone would question it.

The problem is that nobody tells you how much discordant data was filtered out to produce those results.

What discordant dates were filtered out? In those studies, what dates did they throw out? Show us, or retract the claim.

 

[lifepsyop]

Using dishonest quote mines is what is going to get the thread locked down. Please stop.

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with quoting people. If anything has been baseless so far it is you and others' bald accusations of dishonesty.

Measurements with contamination are irrelevant data.

And measurements that contradict established models can be assumed to be contaminated, and thus irrelevant, and thus discarded.

What discordant dates were filtered out? In those studies, what dates did they throw out? Show us, or retract the claim.

Hold on there, sparky. You're the one making the claims with that diagram. Do you really believe the researchers did not encounter any discordant dates when gathering all that data? If they did, then why aren't you presenting the discordance alongside the concordance? Why won't you give us the full context?

 

[Loudmouth]

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with quoting people.

There is something wrong with dishonestly quote mining them, and doing so knowingly in order to mislead people. Please stop.

And measurements that contradict established models can be assumed to be contaminated, and thus irrelevant, and thus discarded.

Show that scientist are falsely throwing out data, or retract the claim.

Hold on there, sparky. You're the one making the claims with that diagram. Do you really believe the researchers did not encounter any discordant dates when gathering all that data? If they did, then why aren't you presenting the discordance alongside the concordance? Why won't you give us the full context?

You are the one claiming that there are discordant dates that can not be explained by contamination or known sources of error. YOU. Please support your allegations or retract them.

 

[RickG]

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with quoting people.

There is if that quote is taken out of context to mean something different than intended by the person being quoted.

And measurements that contradict established models can be assumed to be contaminated, and thus irrelevant, and thus discarded.

Would you mean defining what you mean by "established models"? Please be specific. As for contamination, with most dating methods, any contamination can be detected and taken into account. Samples are not blindly assumed to be contaminant free. In fact, there are specific procedures in sample preparation in the lab for removing any possible contamination.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If scientists believe they have a reliable dating model for part of a geologic timeline, then contradictory results are going to be assumed to be from contamination and discarded

This is the problem with the point you're making. You keep saying contamination is assumed rather than identified. You should provide some evidence that this is the case. It seems unreasonable to keep making that point if you can't support it.

Also, I agree that people need to control themselves. Even accusations of quote mining can be made without getting so worked up.

But you must not know any scientists if you think nobody gets so worked up about science.

 

[The Cadet]

This is the problem with the point you're making. You keep saying contamination is assumed rather than identified. You should provide some evidence that this is the case. It seems unreasonable to keep making that point if you can't support it.

...Plus it becomes doubly unreasonable when someone who actually works in the field tells him that he's totally wrong. As said, I have offered plenty of chances to provide citation. I offered a really simple, really easy way to back up his statement in post #578. All he has to do is read the paper he claimed was filtering out "unwanted" results and cite the part of the paper where they do this and point out why. It's not a difficult task; just read a scientific paper he made claims about. Or salvage at least some integrity and admit that he has never read the paper and doesn't know what he's talking about. This is the kind of intellectual integrity needed to answer a simple, relevant, yes-or-no question like "have you read the Forster/Warrington paper".

 

[RickG]

This is the problem with the point you're making. You keep saying contamination is assumed rather than identified. You should provide some evidence that this is the case. It seems unreasonable to keep making that point if you can't support it.

I believe I've mentioned this before, but probably one of the most vulnerable opportunities for misrepresenting dating methods is through textbooks on the subject. In describing a specific method, it is commonly stated that such and such, ect. must be assumed. What is left out is the context in which those statements are presented. As you pointed out a little further reading explains why those assumptions must be made and how to make sure those assumptions are validated. Not by assuming or hoping they are true, but actually performing tests to identify and remove or account for them. Of course the idea to instill is that the age of the sample being tested is actually much younger than the method reveals. Interesting enough, if some of those problems go undetected ages can actually be understated. An example is in Fission Track dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with quoting people. If anything has been baseless so far it is you and others' bald accusations of dishonesty.

Nonsense on your part. Of course quote mining is wrong. According to your standards the Bible does say "There is no God". Now is that a valid conclusion to be derived from the Bible or not? If you say I am wrong for taking that verse out of context then you are being a hypocrite.

 

[RickG]

Nonsense on your part. Of course quote mining is wrong. According to your standards the Bible does say "There is no God". Now is that a valid conclusion to be derived from the Bible or not? If you say I am wrong for taking that verse out of context then you are being a hypocrite.

Excellent analogy.

Deuteronomy 32:39 ...there is no God..
1 Kings 8:23 ...there is no God...
etc., etc., etc.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ​

I see absolutely no way that the above quote could possibly have been taken out of context!



Why don't you tell me? Look, I'm sorry, but if you can't give me the source and context for that quote, it is useless. If you admit you got it from Woodmorappe, a creationist quite famous for quote-mining the scientific literature, it is almost certainly dishonestly edited. And when you admit you have never read the paper it came from... Well, I'm sorry, but at this point it's just getting sad. Get the source, get the context, consider actually reading the paper you got the quote from, and then come back. Don't bring us this garbage. You're citing a paper you never read, selectively quoted through a second party. That's... not okay. At all.

And did you read that Forster/Warrington paper?

They are justified in discarding data because contamination is known to be abundant. This establishes the scenario where any unfavorable data can be rejected. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's when old-earth believers begin pushing "concordance of dating data" as irrefutable proof of its validity that we find an obvious problem.

For example, we are shown snazzy little diagrams like this one posted earlier.

This is gospel to old-earth believers. They look at those numbers and marvel at how agreeable the dates are and are beside themselves that anyone would question it.

The problem is that nobody tells you how much discordant data was filtered out to produce those results. We are looking at data, only after it has passed through a sieve, i.e. the confirmation bias of the scientist. The concordance is an illusion because the discordance is masked.

Ironically, look how many in this thread whine about "quote-mining" and "taking things out of context", yet for all the years they've been bandying about popular compilations of old-earth "dates", they themselves have never been presenting the data in its full context.

Seems to me that the ones who are trying to throw out dates they don't like are the creationists. The scientists try to throw out dates that aren't accurate. There is a difference, because the facts tell us when a dating is inaccurate.

 

[lifepsyop]

...Plus it becomes doubly unreasonable when someone who actually works in the field tells him that he's totally wrong. As said, I have offered plenty of chances to provide citation. I offered a really simple, really easy way to back up his statement in post #578. All he has to do is read the paper he claimed was filtering out "unwanted" results and cite the part of the paper where they do this and point out why. It's not a difficult task; just read a scientific paper he made claims about. Or salvage at least some integrity and admit that he has never read the paper and doesn't know what he's talking about. This is the kind of intellectual integrity needed to answer a simple, relevant, yes-or-no question like "have you read the Forster/Warrington paper".

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

"A large number of age determinations on rocks of Carboniferous to Triassic age have been
published. In this review, the radiometric data available in nearly 500 separate
articles have been examined by the senior author and, following application of the above
criteria, only 45 dated items have been accepted from this voluminous literature as
suitable for time-scale purposes.

The majority of the published ages have been discarded because of lack of analytical
information or lack of stratigraphical constraint, or because of the obviously
discrepant nature of the data presented. Single, unconfirmed, conventional age
determinations have frequently been used to provide key marker points on a radiometric
time-scale....

Conclusions:
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the data available for each of the
periods under consideration show immense variation in both quantity and quality...

...Reliance on single, unconfirmed ages for the definition of points on the geological
time-scale has been a major fault of many previous time-scales. "


[It is interesting to note that at the time of this publishing, 1985, the field of Geochronology and the modeling of a major portion of "geologic time" was admittedly in poor condition, with only 9% of relevant publications even considered worthwhile of review. Are we really supposed to believe that by roughly a decade or two later these models had become 'beyond dispute', as they are characterized today? Is that true? Or did the Evolution industry's public relations/propaganda wing just get increasingly more persuasive?

....Furthermore, 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.]


"Complete analytical details should be published. It is important that the quality of any
results can be assessed independently and that the original data can, if necessary, be
recalculated using new techniques or regressions. Details of the decay constants used
and the manner in which the errors have been assessed are essential."

[Isn't it interesting how Forster and Warrington are reprimanding geochronologists for not including all their data? What have I been claiming this whole time?

With this in mind, shall we revisit two earlier quotes from the literature from different authors? Do they still sound like "quote mines" ?]

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one 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 know about you guys, but it sounds to me like dates tend to get tossed if they are in contradiction to evolutionary beliefs. ]

 

[lifepsyop]

"...Reliance on single, unconfirmed ages for the definition of points on the geological
time-scale has been a major fault of many previous time-scales. "

I thought Forster and Warrington's warning here is particularly relevant to a geochronology study published only a few years ago where the "age" of a rock formation was changed from 200 million years to 40 million years, because they found out-of-place fossil tracks of modern birds. This 150+ million year modification came down to reliance on a single uranium/lead radiometric date, which was given primacy over multiple lines of evidence maintaining the original ~200 mya Triassic date of the fossils. It is a clear case of the scientists having to bow down to the sacred cow of Evolution, in spite of the data.

more details here for any interested...
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...g-out-of-place-fossils.7813806/#post-65308752

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"...Reliance on single, unconfirmed ages for the definition of points on the geological
time-scale has been a major fault of many previous time-scales. "

I thought Forster and Warrington's warning here is particularly relevant to a geochronology study published only a few years ago where the "age" of a rock formation was changed from 200 million years to 40 million years, because they found out-of-place fossil tracks of modern birds. This 150+ million year modification came down to reliance on a single uranium/lead radiometric date, which was given primacy over multiple lines of evidence maintaining the original ~200 mya Triassic date of the fossils. It is a clear case of the scientists having to bow down to the sacred cow of Evolution, in spite of the data.

more details here for any interested...
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...g-out-of-place-fossils.7813806/#post-65308752

Yes, we constantly find they reject their claims of accuracy in dating when it comes to evolution. It's not that the data does not support this 200 million year rock, but that the birds could not have existed then - so of course it isn't 200 million year rock anymore, despite their claims of the accuracy of the dating. So the fossils are claimed to be judged by the date of the rock, but then the date of the rock is judged by their belief in when the fossil should appear in the record.

They simply "claim" whatever they need to claim to attempt to keep their theory consistent, regardless of any actual dates the dating may show. Why? Because a modern bird appearing at that time would falsify their evolutionary belief - so of course in this instance the majority of dating methods are wrong, but correct everywhere else.

 

[The Cadet]

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

For starters, thank you for this. I kept trying to get it from the lyell collection, but it always asked me to pay; now I can actually read the paper in full as well. Thanks! For what it's worth, this is kind of the discussion I was hoping we could have, actually getting into the meat of the papers and trying to form an understanding of what's going on there.

So, just for reference, here are the exclusion 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. Such rocks are, however, often altered and may have suffered partial loss of radiogenic daughter products. Intrusive igneous rocks, as well as reworked volcanics, metamorphic rocks and most detrital sediments, give only maximum or minimum ages but tend to yield more reliable radiometric data because they are more likely to have formed stable, closed isotopic systems.

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 should not be in conflict with the known geological sequence.

3. Complete analytical details should be published. It is important that the quality of any results can be assessed independently and that the original data can, if necessary, be recalculated using new techniques or regressions. Details of the decay constants used and the manner in which the errors have been assessed are essential.

4. The petrography of samples used for whole-rock determinations should be described so that the suitability of the samples can be independently assessed. In the case of determinations from minerals, only those from species normally regarded as reliable age indicators (Dalrymple & Lanphere 1969; Faure 1977) should be used​

So... what's the problem here? The first issue is sort of a no-brainer; if you're trying to date a specific event in history, you need the rocks from that event, otherwise you might end up dating rocks from literally any time period. The second is, again, a no-brainer: the authors were trying to get the most comprehensively accurate dates possible, and excluding ones that are missing data or for which known problems are likely to play a role. The third one is simply a matter of being able to check the data. The fourth is, again, a matter of precision. So... this can't be the issue here.

The majority of the published ages have been discarded because of lack of analytical
information or lack of stratigraphical constraint, or because of the obviously
discrepant nature of the data presented. Single, unconfirmed, conventional age
determinations have frequently been used to provide key marker points on a radiometric
time-scale; such data are useful in terms of geochronological reconnaissance but cannot, until confirmed by further research, be used to define points on a time-scale. ​

So many of them were rejected because the raw data was not published along with them. This is entirely reasonable if you're trying to form a comprehensive meta-analysis. (The unbolded there is a sentence you left out which I think is fairly relevant). In fact, looking through that section a little further, what you see a lot of is them criticizing other metareviews for including such data. I'm not much of a science historian, and it's hard to find details on anything but the most up-to-date information, but it wouldn't surprise me if the field made immense strides in the 20 years between 1965 and 1985, just like it wouldn't surprise me if it had made significant strides in the 30 years between 1985 and today.

Conclusions:
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the data available for each of the
periods under consideration show immense variation in both quantity and quality... ​

Well, they kinda do. I'm not sure about geology, but in medicine, there's always a ton of research that is, well, absolute crap. 30-person pilot studies on the effects of things we know don't work that somehow come up with positive results anyways, and then are touted by quack organizations, are fairly common and depressingly useful for fooling a lay audience who doesn't understand how such studies are analyzed. That's why they use the criteria above to filter out research they cannot verify effectively.

It is interesting to note that at the time of this publishing, 1985, the field of Geochronology and the modeling of a major portion of "geologic time" was admittedly in poor condition, with only 9% of relevant publications even considered worthwhile of review. Are we really supposed to believe that by roughly a decade or two later these models had become 'beyond dispute', as they are characterized today? Is that true? Or did the Evolution industry's public relations/propaganda wing just get increasingly more persuasive?

I don't know about Geochronology. Finding the history of a scientific discipline is something I'm really quite terrible at, and it's generally easier to find the current, the cutting edge, the modern stuff, because that's usually the stuff that matters the most. However, I can say that in a related field, Climatology, within 20 years we went from a portion (admittedly, a small one) of the scientific literature predicting a coming ice age to a massive disciplinary consensus formed around where the earth was heading and what was causing it. We went from a field with less than 100 published papers per decade to one with thousands published every year. Science, as a rule, moves forward, with iteratively better and more accurate results. We absolutely should think that within 20-30 years, the conclusions drawn from an ever-increasing body of evidence would grow more and more robust.

"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.

@RickG care to voice an opinion on this interpretation? I'm not sure that you're on point here. I'm running a little short on time right now and would like to finish this post; suffice it to say I'll come back to this.

Isn't it interesting how Forster and Warrington are reprimanding geochronologists for not including all their data? What have I been claiming this whole time?

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.

With this in mind, shall we revisit two earlier quotes from the literature from different authors? Do they still sound like "quote mines" ?

"Finally, it is rarely a good solution to eliminate many apparently inferior results just because one 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 know. I'd like to see the context first. There's probably more I should say here, and I will get back to this again later, but I'm late for my train.

On a more personal note, I feel this bears repeating: good on you for reading the paper and engaging it. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the data, but this is a huge step up from making claims about it backed up by nothing more than the abstract. Thank you.