Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you can quote some data and the explanations, I will try to tell you what is wrong.
We should look at an example, instead of just talk in wind.

Let's take the oldest page in the book: The Grand Canyon. Young Earth Creationists claim that the Grand Canyon was formed during the Noahic Flood and that it is evidence of a young Earth.
Geologists that have studied the Grand Canyon and the rock formations that are in the canyon and through testing the radiometric decay rates, and through that work, they can say that the Grand Canyon is over 6 million years old.
What have the geologists done wrong to say that the Grand Canyon is 6 million years old when it should be 4000 years old?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hmmm. I supposed it depends on the exact circumstances, and what the individual is doing with the information. I don't think it's necessarily "reasonable", but it's hard to know their actual mental state, and confirm that it's some form of 'dishonesty'.

Okay, so if a person wants to get a rock tested a certain way, and the lab has a sign that says "We do not test rocks in this way", but the person goes in anyway and uses the information he got from the rock tested to say that "rocks tested in this manner show this result" when it shouldn't, isn't that dishonest?

Maybe. Maybe not. Confirmation bias is prevalent throughout scientific circles, though I'm not sure I'd always assume it's "dishonest". For instance astronomers "assume" that SN1A supernova events all all the same, and that is what they *assumed* when proposing "dark energy", but it's since been shown that SN1A events are *not* all the same. Is it "dishonest" to continue to promote dark energy theory *after* the "assumption" it's based upon has been shown to be false?

Stop with the astrophysics stuff. We are not talking about astrophysics in this thread. This is Earth sciences. If you can't stay on topic, just leave.

 

[RickG]

I hear you, but it's still not always as cut and dry as proponents typically imagine. Is it actually "intellectually dishonest" for instance for me as an individual to "hold doubt" that "space expansion" is an actual "cause" of photon redshift in absence of any laboratory confirmation of such a claim? Is it intellectually dishonest to hold doubt in various claims, particularly when they're built on a host of assumptions?

One thing I didn't clarify was the ignorance avenue. That would include two different types, (1) complete ignorance of the subject, or (2) deliberate ignorance, i.e. cherry picking data that appears to support ones position while ignoring everything that does not. And true, the latter does overlap with deliberate misrepresentation as well.

Various radiometric decay rates can and have been confirmed in the lab. On the other hand, there may in fact, (are in fact) things that might influence that decay rate over time. For instance, it's been shown relatively recently that radiometric decay rates can be influenced by solar storms. Admittedly the amount of influence is minuscule, but it's an example of something unexpected that might at least "influence" one's beliefs. I'll admit that in this case it's a bit far fetched to toss out the scientific baby with what amounts to some small amount of bathwater, but there is almost always several ways to "interpret" various sets of scientific data.

Thus a demonstration that you are not at all familiar radiometric dating and the physics behind it. The rate changes you are describe are not decay rate changes, they are external oscillations which have very little if any effect with any dating method. As for whether we know if rates were different in the past, we can say yes through two different avenues. (1) If physics had changed in the past, the physical record of isotopes would show it at the point of change because the physical properties of those isotopes would have to change. (2) Radionuclides produced by gamma rays from supernovae hundreds of thousands and even millions of light years distant have been observed and measured. Those decay rates are the same as we observe on earth.

 

[whois]

This is something I've seen many creationist/Young Earth believer claim many times on this site: "Scientists/Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the data."
I've seen this said about biologists, I've seen it said about geologists, paleontologists and archaeologists. But I have never seen anyone actually give a proper answer from people who follow the view that all of science showing an old Earth is wrong.

So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?

you can start here:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

interesting reading:
members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/archaeology.htm
www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you can start here:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

I'm not asking if scientists are falsifying data. It happens. They're only human.
I'm asking: what are scientists getting wrong in their work, which should tell them that the world is 6,000 years old not 4.5 billion years old?

 

[whois]

I'm not asking if scientists are falsifying data. It happens. They're only human.
I'm asking: what are scientists getting wrong in their work, which should tell them that the world is 6,000 years old not 4.5 billion years old?

oh i dunno, falsified data maybe?

edit:
BTW, i thougfht this was a thread about scientist misinterpreting data, not a specific topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

oh i dunno, falsified data maybe?

edit:
BTW, i thougfht this was a thread about scientist misinterpreting data, not a specific topic.

Ah, okay, now I get why you posted what you did. I'll change the title to reflect it. Although I think the OP would have made my position clear.

 

[fargonic]

I was simply pointing out that it's entirely possible to "disagree" with another person's interpretation of "raw scientific data", without intentionally or willfully "lying" about it. I don't think it's helpful or necessarily accurate to "assume" that there's an actual intent at dishonesty.

I, too, do not wish this thread to become another "Electric Universe" thread so I'm posting this gingerly:

The differences are that hypotheses about dark energy/dark matter are extremely hypothetic extensions based on data that pretty much everyone agrees on: gravitational effects when no clear source of mass is there.

In the case of geology and biology the data is far less likely to be extrapolated to extremes. Cosmology deals in things that, in the extreme, are often little more than equations meant to explain the behavior followed by attempts to classify the behavior.

In the case of geology we deal with much more simple things. We have sediments or minerals and we know how they behave. When we see sediments or minerals or rocks we have a reasonably good idea how they got where they are. Alternative "interpretations" of this data are usually irrational and foundationally flawed.

As opposed to alternate interpretations of cosmological items which have yet to be seen.

 

[fargonic]

But when a person takes a rock sample to a lab that they have been told will not be able to test for results past a certain point, but still going their anyway, is that not dishonest?

It would only be "dishonest" if the creationist didn't know how science worked and innocently assumed that they were doing nothing wrong. That is simply a case of "not knowing science". Neither one is good, but it is not as bad as being dishonest.

Is not taking the word of a professor of agriculture over a professor of geology, purely because the former accepts the same viewpoint as you (I'm using 'you' to refer to the YEC belief, I'm obviously not directing it at you), is that not dishonest?

Again, doing so willfully knowing it is wrong would be dishonest. To that end Michael is correct. There are legitimate differences of opinion on many pieces of scientific data. It is in the heart of the person doing the action. Which is hard to know.

 

[fargonic]

If you can quote some data and the explanations, I will try to tell you what is wrong.
We should look at an example, instead of just talk in wind.

OK:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It would only be "dishonest" if the creationist didn't know how science worked and innocently assumed that they were doing nothing wrong. That is simply a case of "not knowing science". Neither one is good, but it is not as bad as being dishonest.

True, it might be done innocently, but as RickG said, it's intellectually dishonest.

Again, doing so willfully knowing it is wrong would be dishonest. To that end Michael is correct. There are legitimate differences of opinion on many pieces of scientific data. It is in the heart of the person doing the action. Which is hard to know.

But what makes a professor of agriculture superior to a professor of geology when talking about the age of the Earth? If a person chose the former over the latter purely because the latter will not give results for test that prove the Earth is young, does that make the person dishonest?

 

[Michael]

One thing I didn't clarify was the ignorance avenue. That would include two different types, (1) complete ignorance of the subject, or (2) deliberate ignorance, i.e. cherry picking data that appears to support ones position while ignoring everything that does not. And true, the latter does overlap with deliberate misrepresentation as well.

Yet astronomers "cherry pick" all the time. The number of failed attempts to find "dark matter" has never influenced their "absolute faith" in exotic forms of matter. Ditto for finds of additional forms of ordinary matter. It never changes the "dogma". I'm still not sure I'd characterize that as them being "dishonest", as much as simply being a victim of confirmation bias.

Thus a demonstration that you are not at all familiar radiometric dating and the physics behind it. The rate changes you are describe are not decay rate changes, they are external oscillations which have very little if any effect with any dating method. As for whether we know if rates were different in the past, we can say yes through two different avenues. (1) If physics had changed in the past, the physical record of isotopes would show it at the point of change because the physical properties of those isotopes would have to change. (2) Radionuclides produced by gamma rays from supernovae hundreds of thousands and even millions of light years distant have been observed and measured. Those decay rates are the same as we observe on earth.

I think we're still talking past each other. My point is that there are often unknown (at the time) external influences that *could* have *some* effect on various dating techniques. You're absolutely right that solar flare influences are likely to be primarily a cyclical process, and unlikely to have any significant effect on the actual dating techniques. I'm just noting that there are external factors that aren't always taken into account by "proponents", which might be more of a concern for those with "doubt" in such techniques. I'm not trying to justify, nor am I advocating throwing out all the radiometric data however.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet astronomers "cherry pick" all the time. The number of failed attempts to find "dark matter" has never influenced their "absolute faith" in exotic forms of matter. Ditto for finds of additional forms of ordinary matter. It never changes the "dogma". I'm still not sure I'd characterize that as them being "dishonest", as much as simply being a victim of confirmation bias.



I think we're still talking past each other. My point is that there are often unknown (at the time) external influences that *could* have *some* effect on various dating techniques. You're absolutely right that solar flare influences are likely to be primarily a cyclical process, and unlikely to have any significant effect on the actual dating techniques. I'm just noting that there are external factors that aren't always taken into account by "proponents", which might be more of a concern for those with "doubt" in such techniques. I'm not trying to justify, nor am I advocating throwing out all the radiometric data however.

I said: NO ASTROPHYSICS. If you can't stick to that simple request, don't post in this thread.

 

[Michael]

I, too, do not wish this thread to become another "Electric Universe" thread so I'm posting this gingerly:

The differences are that hypotheses about dark energy/dark matter are extremely hypothetic extensions based on data that pretty much everyone agrees on: gravitational effects when no clear source of mass is there.

In the case of geology and biology the data is far less likely to be extrapolated to extremes. Cosmology deals in things that, in the extreme, are often little more than equations meant to explain the behavior followed by attempts to classify the behavior.

In the case of geology we deal with much more simple things. We have sediments or minerals and we know how they behave. When we see sediments or minerals or rocks we have a reasonably good idea how they got where they are. Alternative "interpretations" of this data are usually irrational and foundationally flawed.

As opposed to alternate interpretations of cosmological items which have yet to be seen.

Yet that "no clear source of mass" is actually an "assumption" that begins with the mainstream "assuming" that they can accurately guestimate the amount of ordinary baryonic matter present in any given galaxy. Over the past 10 years however, their galaxy mass estimation techniques have been *repeatedly* shown to be hopelessly flawed, including stellar miscounts by whopping amounts of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

Is it "intellectually honest" to simply ignore those (now known) flaws and continue to promote the exact same percentages of "dark matter" anyway? Ditto for claiming that "dark energy did it" when their primary "assumption" about SN1A events all being the same has since been shown to be false. How do we even define "intellectual honesty"when talking about "supernatural" forms of matter and energy, when *ordinary* processes would explain the same data set? It's a bit akin to a YEC claiming that "God did it", even though there are "ordinary" processes that would and *do* explain the same set of data.

 

[fargonic]

It's a bit akin to a YEC claiming that "God did it", even though there are "ordinary" processes that would and *do* explain the same set of data.

Well, that's the rub here. In regards to geology there are a lot of regular non-strange methods to explain geologic features. The only thing that is required is time. And that is the primary reason that YEC must create incredibly strange and unheard of mechanisms to achieve the same effects without time.

YEC have essentially made delta t = 0 so they have to make up such extreme examples that it would mean that literally everything we know about anything is out the window.

I don't think it's "dishonest" per se, I think it is wishful thinking on their part. And it is made easier since they don't have to care about science in total.

 

[Michael]

Okay, so if a person wants to get a rock tested a certain way, and the lab has a sign that says "We do not test rocks in this way", but the person goes in anyway and uses the information he got from the rock tested to say that "rocks tested in this manner show this result" when it shouldn't, isn't that dishonest?

If they understand exactly why the "test" isn't valid, yet they continue to misrepresent it's meaning, sure. If they don't understand why it's not valid, maybe not.

Stop with the astrophysics stuff. We are not talking about astrophysics in this thread. This is Earth sciences. If you can't stay on topic, just leave.

I simply used astrophysics as an example to explain why people aren't necessarily "lying" simply because they don't individually buy into the party line "scientific" dogma. That same kind of "doubt" would apply to any field of science. I could have used particle physics claims about extensions to the standard particle physics model, like SUSY theory as well. It would have made no difference.

You talk about NOTHING but astrophysics and how you claim that your views are the be all and end all of astrophysics. So again: if you want to talk about astrophysics, go and start your own thread.

FYI, I start all sorts of threads around here, on all different sorts of topics, and I never claimed that any of my beliefs are the "be all end all of" astrophysics. I simply noted that people choose to "believe" or lack belief for a variety of reasons, some of which you're bound to "disagree" with. It doesn't make them "intellectually dishonest", or a "liar".

 

[freezerman2000]

I said: NO ASTROPHYSICS. If you can't stick to that simple request, don't post in this thread.

As Warden asks, please respect his wishes!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

FYI, I start all sorts of threads around here, on all different sorts of topics, and I never claimed that any of my beliefs are the "be all end all of" astrophysics. I simply noted that people choose to "believe" or lack belief for a variety of reasons, some of which you're bound to "disagree" with. It doesn't make them "intellectually dishonest", or a "liar".

Yet, you always subvert a thread, no matter it's original topic, to talk about your pet electric universe theory.
This thread is about Earth sciences with relation to Young Earth Creationists and why they claim that all scientists that study aspects of the Earth misinterpret the data, and I want it to stick to that topic.

 

[RickG]

Yet astronomers "cherry pick" all the time. The number of failed attempts to find "dark matter" has never influenced their "absolute faith" in exotic forms of matter. Ditto for finds of additional forms of ordinary matter. It never changes the "dogma". I'm still not sure I'd characterize that as them being "dishonest", as much as simply being a victim of confirmation bias.

Off topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As Warden asks, please respect his wishes!

Thank you. Although I will apologise to Michael if my request came across as something more rude.