More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[archaeologist]

Hey - if you actually took time to read my threads/posts on this topic you'll see I have backed up the statement about the Creationists not doing any science. I have started entire threads on this topic.

read your posts again---all you have given is unsubstatntiated claims without examples to prove your case.

It's not my fault you are incapable of understanding science or even what science is. You have a truly appalling level of science knowledge and seemingly no ability to follow even simple arguments toward that end.

personal attacks and insults ignored.

 

[KerrMetric]

You can dance all you want to but I have many times on here over the last couple of years point out how and why the creationist groups do not do science in a professional above board manner.

It is not a personal attack to say you have trouble following science arguments - it is patently a fact. Your struggles to handle even high school math/physics understanding in the radiodating thread a week or so ago highlighted this fact. You obviously not only did not learn any science past high school - you forgot even the stuff you must have been through. This is not an insult, many many people are just like you in this regard - scientifically lost at sea.

 

[archaeologist]

again persoanl attacks ignored. if this is your idea of discussion of a topic then you have a lot to learn.

you have provided no proof for your statements, and if you have over the last few years then it should be easy for you to post more.

not backing up your statements just show you cannot prove what you say and are non-credible.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

again persoanl attacks ignored. ...

Personal attack?

Has a post been deleted?

 

[KerrMetric]

you have provided no proof for your statements, and if you have over the last few years then it should be easy for you to post more.

BS.

Why not search the thread history on this board and see the ones I started. Several address this exact area. Heck - I seem to recall you popped up on a couple of the more recent ones.

 

[archaeologist]

youhave been upset ever since i proved you attacked AIG and ICR hypocritically. get over it. you were wrong and they are free to practice science anyway they see fit.

 

[TheOutsider]

From everything I have read on AIG, they have done zero research ever and have never even made a cohesive theory that is falsifiable. They are trying to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution but don't seem to realize that even if evolution is wrong that doesn't automatically make creationism right.

 

[juvenissun]

KerrMetric said:

It is not a personal attack to say you have trouble following science arguments - it is patently a fact. Your struggles to handle even high school math/physics understanding in the radiodating thread a week or so ago highlighted this fact. You obviously not only did not learn any science past high school - you forgot even the stuff you must have been through. This is not an insult, many many people are just like you in this regard - scientifically lost at sea.

It sounds that you are NOT. So you do understand what ICR people said about the arguments on radiometric dating.

Right?

If you say yes, then I will give you a quiz about it.

 

[KerrMetric]

Quiz away.

 

[Assyrian]

 

[archaeologist]

still no links to backup their claims--empty words then

 

[theFijian]

still no links to backup their claims--empty words then

Why do want links archie? It's common knowledge!

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Why do want links archie? It's common knowledge!

Touché!

 

[juvenissun]

Quiz away.

The purpose of this quiz is to test if you could read scientific diagram with an understanding about at a high school level.

The source of question is from an ICR research paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

The question diagram is on this link:
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z291/Rockpicker_2007/?action=view&current=Picture2.png

Question 1 (high school level): Based on this diagram, is the argument of a young earth valid?

Question 2 (optional, but at a college level): Name one problem about the data of Jemez Zircon?

If you think the question is not fair, please say so.

----------

This quiz stuff is only a show. The real argument demonstrated here is that ICR people ARE doing real science.

 

[Fed]

LOL high school level. You realize Kerr is a tenured prof of physics at a respected institution? Not to brag for him or anything, but it's safe to say he's done more actual research than the entirety of creation science the last 30 years.

 

[archaeologist]

LOL high school level. You realize Kerr is a tenured prof of physics at a respected institution? Not to brag for him or anything, but it's safe to say he's done more actual research than the entirety of creation science the last 30 years

but it also provides an example and warning that even the educated are not immune from being led astray or from being deceived.

 

[Deamiter]

but it also provides an example and warning that even the educated are not immune from being led astray or from being deceived.

Please provide us links to credible sources that back up your claim that Kerr Metric is being led astray or being deceived. Otherwise, these are just empty words.

 

[Deamiter]

The purpose of this quiz is to test if you could read scientific diagram with an understanding about at a high school level.

The source of question is from an ICR research paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

The question diagram is on this link:
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z291/Rockpicker_2007/?action=view&current=Picture2.png

Question 1 (high school level): Based on this diagram, is the argument of a young earth valid?

Question 2 (optional, but at a college level): Name one problem about the data of Jemez Zircon?

If you think the question is not fair, please say so.

----------

This quiz stuff is only a show. The real argument demonstrated here is that ICR people ARE doing real science.

So... in order to demonstrate that the ICR people are doing science, you ask whether a graph they made leads to their conclusions? Given that their graph clearly indicates that creationism is right and old-age is wrong, wouldn't it be better to examine the source of the data or the technique used to calculate the data points?

Further, I notice that the graph itself contains no error bars and that the article itself only mentions the figure in passing giving absolutely no detail on the calculations used, the source of the data or the estimated error in the data points. Here is the text regarding figure 2:

Additional laboratory measurements and modeling studies of helium diffusion in zircon are expected to lead to a further refinement of the creationist model. The data of Fig. 2 indicate an age between 4,000 and 14,000 years since the helium began to diffuse from the zircons. This is far short of the 1.5 billion year evolutionist age! We believe that the final results will resoundingly support our hypothesis concerning diffusion and radiogenic helium.

How this can be claimed as "scientific" is beyond me, though I'm sure the pretty graph looks very impressive to nonscientists! The whole article looks like it was designed to convince lay-people without giving even remotely enough information for an expert in the field to BEGIN to evaluate the claims being made.

Making claims is darned easy, but if this is the level of the articles being published by ICR, I'm not supprised they don't even TRY to submit to scientific peer-reviewed journals.

 

[juvenissun]

So... in order to demonstrate that the ICR people are doing science, you ask whether a graph they made leads to their conclusions? Given that their graph clearly indicates that creationism is right and old-age is wrong, wouldn't it be better to examine the source of the data or the technique used to calculate the data points?

Further, I notice that the graph itself contains no error bars and that the article itself only mentions the figure in passing giving absolutely no detail on the calculations used, the source of the data or the estimated error in the data points. Here is the text regarding figure 2:

How this can be claimed as "scientific" is beyond me, though I'm sure the pretty graph looks very impressive to nonscientists! The whole article looks like it was designed to convince lay-people without giving even remotely enough information for an expert in the field to BEGIN to evaluate the claims being made.

Making claims is darned easy, but if this is the level of the articles being published by ICR, I'm not supprised they don't even TRY to submit to scientific peer-reviewed journals.

The first question should be pretty easy for you. As I said, it is only a high school level question.

Why don't you try the second one? The consideration of this one should answer a good part of your question.

 

[KerrMetric]

The purpose of this quiz is to test if you could read scientific diagram with an understanding about at a high school level.

The source of question is from an ICR research paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

The question diagram is on this link:
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z291/Rockpicker_2007/?action=view&current=Picture2.png

Question 1 (high school level): Based on this diagram, is the argument of a young earth valid?

Question 2 (optional, but at a college level): Name one problem about the data of Jemez Zircon?

If you think the question is not fair, please say so.

----------

This quiz stuff is only a show. The real argument demonstrated here is that ICR people ARE doing real science.

Question 1) - There are two answers I can give to this. First the smart ass answer is No. This is because this is simple a plot of the measured diffusion coefficients in zircon versus inverse T. No mention in the plot of age of the Earth.

The non-smart ass answer is still No. This is because the model points and the data do not overlap in the abscissa range. The trend of the experimental data and the models is suggestive for the model points labelled "Creationist Model" but nothing more. Perhaps for some geochemical reason you would expect a critical change to occur at approx. 1.8 on the abscissa and the diffusion coefficients to drop for some reason. Remember I am basing this totally on this plot only and not my knowledge in this area.

Question 2) One immediate problem with the data at a high school level is no indication of measurement errors.

A more critical error is exactly how did they measure the helium diffusion rates for the exact pressure and thermal history of the zircons? I read the actual paper of Humphreys http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf and there are some real problems here - problems that IMO would lead to immediate peer review rejection.

These experimental results were done in a vacuum !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some external guy was hired to do mass spectrometry on the helium diffusing out of the zircons. This had to be in a vacuum. This makes the results irrelevant at best and extremely misleading more like. At realistic pressures deep underground the diffusion rate would I think be drastically reduced. In fact I know it would. Aren't these zircons embedded in biotite/mica?? This soft flaky mineral is going to open up in a vacuum and give false high diffusion rates as opposed to them being deep underground.

I can think of other criticisms but using the figure you gave me (plus the reading of the Humphreys paper I linked above about the actual experiment) these are my short answers.