#20191: Ben — 03/28  at  08:44 AM
Huh? How is the reliability of our senses superfluous?

It's superfluous because it's a meaninglessly self-referential charge. You're using your human senses to make a judgment about general human senses. Do I have to explain to you what a Godelian nightmare this assertion is? It's the "This sentence is a lie" paradox all over again. Fuck man, don't make me explain this to you. *CHOP* It's gone.

Why do creationists have to "rely" (your quotes) on uniformitarianism?

OK, I'm assuming by "uniformitarianism" you mean "The safe bet that present natural forces exist throughout the universe and have existed far into the past". You can correct me if I'm wrong. But you're making extrapolations on the past by using present data, and as such your conclusions are equally predicated upon the constancy of natural phenomena throughout history.

And how am I wrong about uniformitarianism?

Because it's the only game in town. I can safely bet that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. Of course, it's entirely possible that it WON'T, but to bet against it would be rather perverse(are you offering?). If you wish to put forward the claim that the natural forces of the universe DON'T exist throughout it and have existed as per the laws of physics throughout cosmological history, you're free to do so, but you'll have to do a good job as to explaining why this is a reasonable claim to make. There are assumptions, and then there's common sense.

Actually, isn't uniformitarianism a geological thing?

#20192: Ben — 03/28  at  08:52 AM
But this page is not the place for that.

Actually, it's the perfect place for that. After the cat-fart that was Rodger Dodger, we could use a calm and dispassionate polemic on the issue to soothe our collective palates. And I don't give out my email address to strangers. My offer remains open.

#20308: — 03/28  at  09:42 PM
Philip, I read the Wikipedia on Ussher. Was that supposed to make him more credible in my eyes?

It didn't.

It seems that, when not busy persecuting Irish Catholics, he made endless calculations based on nothing at all. He and Lightfoot, though they claimed to know the hour and the day, could not agree on the year within 75 years.

Now, 75 years out of 6,000 is a pretty big error, so big that an error of similar proportions by those who figure the Earth is 4.5 billion years old would be big enough to leave out the entire Pleistocene, and then some.

Until you corrected me, I had thought that Ussher was just another Christian goofball. Now I know better. He was a murderous Christian goofball.

Thanks.

#20332: — 03/29  at  07:48 AM
Philip J Rament wrote: "..see my answer (A New Cosmology..)"

Dr. Humphrey's cosmology was discredited quite some time ago. His model was not supported by the empirical data. His model also posits a universe billions of years old, putting him in conflict with YEC's. And, he has thus far refused to formally submit his work (books and magazine articles notwithstanding) for peer review - this alone is a sign that something isn't quite right, even in his mind.

#20484: — 03/30  at  01:31 PM
Phillip replied:

That's the theory, but it's not that straightforward in practice

It’s nice to see that we agree, Phillip. So the only real question is how frequently the methods fails. Because it uses analytical data, the isochron method is only as accurate as the measurements allow, so it is possible to get false isochrons. Keep in mind that each point on the plot is an analysis of a different mineral (each of which having different structures and chemistries), so to get a linear, but false, isochron line requires an exceptionally fortutitous combination of original composition and subsequent diffusion. This is the real point that your wiki entry conveniently overlooked.

And, as I noted above, the test is how it compares with the relative dating, which is not subject to the same effects. If an intrusive rock cuts across Permian strata but not Triassic strata, and the isochron gives us 10 mya, then there is something else going on.

The example given by the wiki entry you referenced is a bit of a giveaway: using U and Th isotopes on something less than 100K years old is absolutely pushing the analytical envelope. It’s hardly surprising that there may have been analytical problems.

It appears that you are diligently painting yourself into the same corner that Woodmorappe has aimed for. If you want to discredit something, you can’t cherry pick a few weak examples, you have to tackle the strongest examples.

Only one of the quotes you gave actually indicate dishonesty (as opposed to, say, inadequate treatment), and that one claimed "deliberate misquotation", without any proof that the misquotation was in fact deliberate.

From Woody’s paper:

There are many instances of dates with good internal consistency being rejected as not giving the correct age of a rock because they conflict with accepted values. In a Precambrian situation, K-Ar dates were much younger than the (presumed correct) Rb-Sr dates, and about the K-Ar dates McKee and Noble commented: "Continuous partial argon loss may have occurred. If this is the case, the consistency of these apparent ages is fortuitous."

From the original reference:

Continuous partial argon loss may have occurred as a result of weathering or heating from deep burial, although neither phenomenon is apparent from field or petrographic studies. If this is the case, the consistency of these apparent ages is fortuitous. The consistency of the three K-Ar ages reported here suggests that the lower radiometric ages obtained by the K-Ar method may reflect an episode of heating about 800 m.y. ago.

Leaving out a portion of the middle of the original sentence in this manner is an “inadequate treatment” well beyond the point of fraud. Another quote shows that he deliberately selected data from a table while ignoring other data that contradicted him (and which he did not address). Yet a third points out another edited quotation..

Your apparently willful acceptance of such behavior leads me to reiterate my statement at the end of comment #63:

I swear, creationist Bibles must be leaving out the 9th commandment!

#20555: — 03/31  at  08:32 AM
Ben wrote:

Huh? How is the reliability of our senses superfluous?

It's superfluous because it's a meaninglessly self-referential charge. You're using your human senses to make a judgment about general human senses.

Actually, as I was saying, we are making an assumption about our senses. It may be a necessary assumption to make, but it is an assumption nevertheless. And that's the point; that some assumptions are necessary to any worldview that one holds.

Dismissing it as "self-referential" and a "paradox" is inappropriate. The fact is that we do believe that we an trust our senses, and the fact is that we can't prove that, so the fact is that it is an assumption.

Ben wrote:

Why do creationists have to "rely" (your quotes) on uniformitarianism?

OK, I'm assuming by "uniformitarianism" you mean "The safe bet that present natural forces exist throughout the universe and have existed far into the past". You can correct me if I'm wrong. But you're making extrapolations on the past by using present data, and as such your conclusions are equally predicated upon the constancy of natural phenomena throughout history.

No, I'm not talking about the universality of the laws of physics, but the principle that geological formations have been formed largely by the same processes that we see occurring today. Geologists used to believe that processes unlike what we see today shaped the surface of this planet (specifically including a global flood), but Hutton and others threw out that idea and replaced it with uniformitarianism. Since then, the view has had to be modified somewhat in the face of overwhelming evidence, but most geologists still believe largely in uniformitarianism, but allowing for a few relatively small catastrophes.

Ben wrote:

But this page is not the place for that.

Actually, it's the perfect place for that. ... we could use a calm and dispassionate polemic on the issue to soothe our collective palates. And I don't give out my email address to strangers. My offer remains open.

I remain of the opinion that this is not the appropriate place, and my offer remains open also. If it means anything to you, I promise not to misuse your e-mail address.

Harry Eagar wrote:

Philip, I read the Wikipedia on Ussher. Was that supposed to make him more credible in my eyes?

It didn't.

No, it was meant to give you some accurate information about him, which you were appearing to lack.

Harry Eagar wrote:

It seems that, when not busy persecuting Irish Catholics, he made endless calculations based on nothing at all.

That's misrepresenting what he (and many others) did regarding calculations. And as for "persecuting catholics", there was nothing in the linked article about that. The Wikipedia article on Ussher himself does say that he opposed Catholics, which must make him somewhat like you bibliosceptics here are doing to creationists, so I'd be justified in saying that you are "persecuting" me!

Harry Eager wrote:

He and Lightfoot, though they claimed to know the hour and the day, could not agree on the year within 75 years.

If you understood their methodology, you would understand how that could be.

Harry Eagar wrote:

Until you corrected me, I had thought that Ussher was just another Christian goofball. Now I know better. He was a murderous Christian goofball.

Where did you get "murderous" from? Just bibliosceptic slander? And your charge of "goofball" is nothing but arrogance. As the linked article said, Steven Jay Gould respected him as a historian, even though he obviously didn't agree with him. To quote Gould: "...our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness..." And to be consistent, you ought to call Sir Isaac Newton a goofball also, as he also argued for a creation date of about 4000 BC.

SteveR wrote:

Philip J Rament wrote: "..see my answer (A New Cosmology..)"

Dr. Humphrey's cosmology was discredited quite some time ago.

Of course. He is a creationist, so of course it was discredited.

SteveR wrote:

His model was not supported by the empirical data.

Others obviously disagree.

SteveR wrote:

His model also posits a universe billions of years old, putting him in conflict with YEC's.

Which is why, I suppose, that the young-Earth organisation Answers in Genesis promotes his work? Pull the other one.

SteveR wrote:

And, he has thus far refused to formally submit his work (books and magazine articles notwithstanding) for peer review - this alone is a sign that something isn't quite right, even in his mind.

He has published articles in the peer-reviewed journal TJ, and I suspect in CRSQ also.

Neil wrote:

It’s nice to see that we agree, Phillip. So the only real question is how frequently the methods fails.

So how do you tell if it's failed, except by comparing results to ages that you have from other radiometric methods that you are checking?

Neil wrote:

...[a] false, isochron line requires an exceptionally fortutitous combination of original composition and subsequent diffusion.

Or something that affects them all equally.

Creationists don't dismiss radiometric dating at totally without merit. Despite the untestable assumptions and the proven false results from many tests, there is likely something else going on that has yet to be adequately explained. It's a bit like UFOs—you can dismiss most of them as weather balloons, sightings of Venus, hoaxes, etc., but there are some that require better explanations. With radiometric dating, you can show that the methods are not reliable, but there is still a certain amount of consistency that is not yet explained.

Which brings us to a fundamental point of creationism. It's not claiming that it can prove creation from science, and it's not claiming that it can scientifically prove evolution/long ages wrong. What is is claiming is that science can't prove those things right, so from a scientific point of view the question is still open.

Neil wrote:

If you want to discredit something, you can’t cherry pick a few weak examples, you have to tackle the strongest examples.

Whilst creationists may not have yet totally explained the problems with radiometric dating, they have gone further than just "cherry pick a few weak examples". I believe that they have shown enough problems with the results to put a big question mark over them. And they are still working on it.

Neil wrote:

Leaving out a portion of the middle of the original sentence in this manner is an “inadequate treatment” well beyond the point of fraud. Another quote shows that he deliberately selected data from a table while ignoring other data that contradicted him (and which he did not address). Yet a third points out another edited quotation..

Leaving out a portion of the quote was the one I was referring to as claimed deliberate dishonesty. The "inadequate treatment" remark was to do with most of the rest.

And the misquote may have another explanation for all I know. I've seen a case before where a creationist was accused of a misquote, but if I recall correctly the creationists actually got the quote from a different source than the person accusing him of misquoting (in that case a translation was involved). Alternatively, I don't for one moment think that it's impossible that the misquote was an accident, even if you want to argue that it was due to carelessness.

#20578: — 03/31  at  12:32 PM
Isaac Newton was a goofball. He left behind something like 5 million words of biblical musings, which no one has ever thought worth publishing.

Imagine that, one of the rarest intellects evolution ever produced, and most of his efforts are recognized as worthless and boring.

It was a tragedy that silly religion superstitions implanted in him as an impressionable boy caused him to waste most of his efforts worrying about whether the Trinity was the correct description of the deity. (You want to be careful claiming him, he was not a Christian.)

If Ussher was part of the Anglican Supremacy, which he was -- he was the head of it -- he was a murderer. Read some history.

#20586: — 03/31  at  03:22 PM
PJR said "Which brings us to a fundamental point of creationism. It's not claiming that it can prove creation from science, and it's not claiming that it can scientifically prove evolution/long ages wrong. What is is claiming is that science can't prove those things right, so from a scientific point of view the question is still open."

To which I say ...
But what Creationism is also claiming is that there is no need for a scientific point of view a the question is settled. Creationists believe therefore they have to need to investigate and question (which just might make them scientists). You cant find an alternative answer if you refuse to look for one. Scientists do question both their data and methods and regularly look for ways to validate both. PZ himself has said that while Darwin, Gould, et al are smart people, others have built on their findings and others have found better answers than those fine gentlemen in some cases.

On the other hand, the Bible is a static document and its dictates are enforced by various lies and intimidations and investigating it's accuracy as either fact or allegory is always discouraged by those who believe it contains only the truth.

**********************************************************
"Organized religion elevates superstition to an entirely new level, so let's call its institutions by their proper name: superstition-based institutions.

The creationism vs. evolution debate also illuminates this intolerance. Christians insist that their creation myth represent the creationist side. But there are many creationist myths, many of which predated both Christianity and Judaism. If evidence is not needed, why exclude any superstitions? As Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, "there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas."

http://www.alternet.org/story/21641

#20934: — 04/04  at  01:21 AM
Harry Eagar wrote:

Isaac Newton was a goofball.

If you say so.

Desert Donkey wrote:

PJR said "Which brings us to a fundamental point of creationism. It's not claiming that it can prove creation from science, and it's not claiming that it can scientifically prove evolution/long ages wrong. What is is claiming is that science can't prove those things right, so from a scientific point of view the question is still open."

To which I say ...
But what Creationism is also claiming is that there is no need for a scientific point of view a the question is settled. Creationists believe therefore they have to need to investigate and question (which just might make them scientists).

Many creationists are scientists, so makes a lot of sense.

Desert Donkey wrote:

You cant find an alternative answer if you refuse to look for one.

Good advice for the evolutionists too.

Desert Donkey wrote:

Scientists do question both their data and methods and regularly look for ways to validate both.

True, but how many evolutionary scientists ever question evolution? They may question certain aspects of evolution, just as creationary scientists question certain aspects of creation, but just as anticreationists like to accuse creationists of not questioning creation, evolutionary scientists don't question evolution itself.

Desert Donkey wrote:

On the other hand, the Bible['s] ... dictates are enforced by various lies and intimidations...

Rubbish.

Desert Donkey wrote:

... and investigating it's accuracy as either fact or allegory is always discouraged by those who believe it contains only the truth.

More rubbish. On the contrary, Bible-believing Christians would love people to investigate its accuracy, as they know that it can stand up to investigation.

And the rest of your post was nothing more than uninformed rhetoric.

#21040: — 04/05  at  08:58 AM
Further to my previous post, I find this quite ironic:

Desert Donkey wrote:

You cant find an alternative answer if you refuse to look for one. Scientists do question both their data and methods ...

In this particular situation we have the creationists questioning the date of the fossil, and the "scientists" failing to do that. Yet I am told that scientists do question their data and their methods, and that it is the creationists that are refusing to look for an alternative explanation!

And the clear inference is that the creationists are questioning because of their belief in a static book. When creationists point out that many evolutionists are atheists, and that that belief motivates them, we are told that their beliefs are irrelevant, and that it is the way that they do their science that matters. Yet here we have creationists questioning the date of the fossil on the basis of scientific evidence, specifically, a widely-used dating method. That method is what is used by pathologists to determine the date of death of a human or other living creature—the rate of decomposition. Sure, the rate of decay can be affected by a number of factors, including the temperature of the body, but the point is that we know that complex organic structures such as blood vessels deteriorate in a time range much less than 70 million years. To claim that they could survive intact for that long beggars belief.

So creationary scientists are questioning the validity of one type of dating method (radiometric decay) on the basis of another type of dating method (biological decay), yet in this thread are mocked for being unscientific and are being told that they should question things!

On the other hand, we have the evolutionists—the ones saying that we should question more—refusing to question the date!

#21044: Chris Clarke — 04/05  at  09:13 AM

So creationary scientists are questioning the validity of one type of dating method (radiometric decay) on the basis of another type of dating method (biological decay)

Please provide a citation of a peer-reviewed paper by cretinary scientists that delineates this problem.

#21054: — 04/05  at  10:24 AM
"creationary scientist" ?? That is a better oxymoron than 'military intelligence'. Chris's version 'cretinary scientist' strikes me as more accurate.

And if the threat of an eternity in hell isnt intimidation, I dont know what is.

#21056: Chris Clarke — 04/05  at  10:26 AM
Why are there no Jumbo Shrimp transitional fossils!!???//?!1!

#21060: — 04/05  at  10:36 AM
Chris, I think the transitional version is called 'popcorn' shrimp in Louisiana!

#21178: judgeMC — 04/06  at  03:49 PM
I have only one question about using the bible to date thigs: How do you know how long a year is in the bible? We've changed calenders several times in the last 2000 years how can you compare the ages given in the bible to todays dates when the bible gives no rate for comparision?

#21186: — 04/06  at  05:12 PM

On the other hand, we have the evolutionists - the ones saying that we should question more — refusing to question the date!

Through the specific scientific methods used to determine the age of the specimen, every date has (more or less) been put to the test of science.

The currently accepted date is the date that "won out" - that is, it is the date that fits the models and experimental data.

The Creationists are basing their answers on a static book. They have actually chosen their date for the tissue specimen by a random process, which can easily be spotted when realizing that the "Genesis" data certainly can not account for why there isn't soft tissue in every fossil - that is, if this sample (presumably) just happens to be around due to it's "young" age [sic].

#21514: — 04/10  at  09:26 PM
Chris Clarke wrote:

Please provide a citation of a peer-reviewed paper by cretinary scientists that delineates this problem.

I don't know of any cretinary scientists.

And as this is a new discovery, I wouldn't expect any creationary scientists to have published a peer-reviewed paper on it yet. You are asking a bit much.

Desert Donkey wrote:

"creationary scientist" ?? That is a better oxymoron than 'military intelligence'. Chris's version 'cretinary scientist' strikes me as more accurate.

There is nothing oxymoronic about "creationary scientist", and if calling your opposition names is the level of your argument, you obviously don't have an argument.

Desert Donkey also wrote:

And if the threat of an eternity in hell isnt intimidation, I dont know what is.

I suppose that you would also describe the threat of a jail sentence for committing a crime as intimidation. Words tend to lose meaning when you do things like that.

judgeMC wrote:

I have only one question about using the bible to date thigs: How do you know how long a year is in the bible? We've changed calenders several times in the last 2000 years how can you compare the ages given in the bible to todays dates when the bible gives no rate for comparision?

If you are talking about a precise date, such as to the very day, you probably can't use the Bible to date that accurately (and notice that Ussher didn't come up with a precise date by exactly that means anyway). But ancient calendars were generally pretty close to a year, at least on average when you take leap months into account. The length of a year is sufficiently well known to give a pretty good idea.

Jeebus wrote:

Through the specific scientific methods used to determine the age of the specimen, every date has (more or less) been put to the test of science.

Without specifics, this is a fairly meaningless statement. Many dates of individual fossils are derived from the accepted date for the rock layer it was found in. Is this what you mean by being "put to the test of science"? If you mean that dates assigned to fossils have been individually tested by radiometric means, then this is not the case. And if it was so, there would not be so many examples of scientists redating specimens at a later time. And neither would there be so many cases of radiometric dates being clearly wrong.

Jeebus wrote:

The Creationists are basing their answers on a static book.

To the extent that that's true, surely that's better than basing it on a book that keeps changing, like many science books?

Jeebus also wrote:

They have actually chosen their date for the tissue specimen by a random process, which can easily be spotted when realizing that the "Genesis" data certainly can not account for why there isn't soft tissue in every fossil - that is, if this sample (presumably) just happens to be around due to it's "young" age [sic].

I'm not sure that I follow this. What "random" process are you talking about? And who says that a creation model can't account for why there's not soft tissue in every fossil? And where did creationists "[choose] their date" for it, other than a reference to "a few thousand years at most" (which is a very broad range on a creationary time scale)? And who are you quoting when you quote "young"?

#21517: — 04/10  at  11:04 PM
Admitting that available dating techniques are not accurate, how would a creationist date the fossil? Is there any alternative methodology? Can you prove that the elastic fossil tissue found is less than 6000 years old? Why nothing similar was ever found?

#21644: — 04/11  at  08:57 PM
jaimito wrote:

Admitting that available dating techniques are not accurate, how would a creationist date the fossil? Is there any alternative methodology?

A creationist would probably use similar techniques to a non-creationist, but with the differences that he would (a) have different starting assumptions and (b) recognise that dating methods are not infallible.

Creationists generally consider carbon dating to be pretty reliable over the time span for which it has been possible to calibrate it with artifacts of known age (i.e. known from historical records), so in this case would probably find a C14 date acceptable.

jaimito wrote:

Can you prove that the elastic fossil tissue found is less than 6000 years old?

What do you mean by "prove"? When some amateur creationists claim that evolution has not been proven, evolutionists are quick to point out (correctly) that in science, nothing is ever considered "proved". So how do you expect me to "prove" that the tissue is less than 6000 years old?

What creationists would primarily argue is that the evidence is more consistent with the creation model than the evolutionary model.

However, they could potentially also advance other evidence in support of a "young" fossil, such as the afore-mentioned C14 date, if/when this is done. Note that because evolutionists believe that the fossil is far too old for C14 dating, it is very unlikely that the C14 method will actually be used on the specimen.

jaimito wrote:

Why nothing similar was ever found?

Because no-one has looked?

This specimen was only found because it was necessary to break the fossil in two (thus exposing the material of interest) in order to get the very large fossil onto the helicopter removing it from the burial site. There is now talk of breaking open other fossils already in museums to see if more examples can be found.

Actually, similar things have been found. The same Dr. Schweitzer previously found what appeared to be red blood cells in a T. Rex fossil (the idea that it was blood was rejected simply because of the presumed age of the fossil and the belief that blood couldn't survive that long). And unfossilised dinosaur bones have been found in Alaska.

#21649: — 04/11  at  10:08 PM
Philip J. Rayment responds to Jeebus' statement that:

Through the specific scientific methods used to determine the age of the specimen, every date has (more or less) been put to the test of science.

by replying,

Without specifics, this is a fairly meaningless statement.

Not so, PJR. Specifics are not the matter at hand, here. The manner through which every contemporary (newly-observed) data point is put to the "test of science," is by having to jive with each data point preceeding it. Thus, it is the entirety of the History of Science and the History of Empirical Study that stands as evidence for or against our observations.

Accordingly, if a relatively "fundamental" theory is found to be false, then all of it's daughter theories will have to be scratched as well.

Science is by and large a progressive enterprise, forever subjecting itself to the harshest of criticisms. Why? Because we know that if our research leads to the publication of false data, someone else will do it correctly, and the lights will begin to shine quite brightly then, my brother...

Jeebus wrote,

The Creationists are basing their answers on a static book.

To which PJR responded,

To the extent that that's true, surely that's better than basing it on a book that keeps changing, like many science books?

Whoa. Please, please don't tell me that you are against the progress of mankind! You don't think people should learn? <b>Would you like to be treated by physicians who practiced with the knowledge and expertise of the doctors of the time when the Biblical Tales were written?

Jeebus also wrote,

They have actually chosen their date for the tissue specimen by a random process, which can easily be spotted when realizing that the "Genesis" data certainly can not account for why there isn't soft tissue in every fossil - that is, if this sample (presumably) just happens to be around due to it's "young" age [sic].

To which PJR responded,

I'm not sure that I follow this. What "random" process are you talking about? And who says that a creation model can't account for why there's not soft tissue in every fossil?

The random process I'm referring to, is the observation that there are endless data that support Evolution - and therefore refute the ID/Creationist propositions.

But, when one (or a few) scientific phenomenon appear to have been guided by the hand of an immaterial being, it automatically means that Evolution is false, and that Creationism is on the money.

Ya'll spend all your time trying to un-explain completely random Evolutionary events, instead of making any observations or hypotheses or creating any data or theory or anything.

And you hang onto those few examples, as if your afterlife depended on it. Of course, there usually exist well-understood scientific explanations for these blindly chosen "exemplars" - these, of course, are completely ignored by the Creationist bandwagon.

No Creationist model has ever accounted for anything.

I'm not saying it never will, however, because as we all agree:

Science can't prove anything.

And who are you quoting when you quote "young"?

So... you do, or do not think that the bones are very, very, very old?

#21654: — 04/12  at  02:50 AM

A creationist would probably use similar techniques to a non-creationist, but with the differences that he would (a) have different starting assumptions and (b) recognise that dating methods are not infallible.

Creationists generally consider carbon dating to be pretty reliable over the time span for which it has been possible to calibrate it with artifacts of known age (i.e. known from historical records), so in this case would probably find a C14 date acceptable.

If I understood correctly, creationists have no special techniques for dating. I accept that starting assumptions do have an impact on the results, as shown by the discovery of the number of human chromosomes (the story goes that some authority counted the -wrong - number and generations of researchers kept quoting him. Another one is about Aristotles who wrote women have fewer teeth than men, and that was truth for two thousand years. I doubt if the stories are true). Regarding fallibility of dating techniques, only the Pope (and only speaking ex cathedra) is infallible. So I heard.

If creationists accept conventional scientific dating methods and only their attitude is more sceptical than those of conventional scientists, the conundrum is solvable. Calculation of carbon decay timing is based on equations that allow to extrapolate into the past and into the future. We cannot validate extrapolations into the far past, but extrapolations to the near future can be tested and they have validated the calculation method and the theory it is based on. Carbon 14 decay calculations are based on exactly the same theory as dating methods based on different isotopes. If you accept dating based on C 14 decay, why not the others? I have also a question on your acceptance of C14 dating results, which are considered very solid to 50 - 60 thousand years into the past: Do you accept it all the way or only to the limit of 6000 years?

#21730: — 04/12  at  09:49 PM
Jeebus wrote:

Not so, PJR. Specifics are not the matter at hand, here.

They were to the extent that it wasn't clear (to me at least) what you meant by the "test of science", and whether or not the dates were supposed to have passed that test.

Jeebus wrote:

The manner through which every contemporary (newly-observed) data point is put to the "test of science," is by having to jive with each data point preceeding it. Thus, it is the entirety of the History of Science and the History of Empirical Study that stands as evidence for or against our observations.

So are you claiming that every bit of data is totally consistent with every bit that has gone before?

Jeebus wrote:

Science is by and large a progressive enterprise, forever subjecting itself to the harshest of criticisms. Why? Because we know that if our research leads to the publication of false data, someone else will do it correctly, and the lights will begin to shine quite brightly then, my brother...

If only it were that straightforward. There are many examples of false data surviving for quite some time. And your ideal world ignores the power of popular paradigms, such as evolution, into which all observations are expected to fit.

I wrote:

To the extent that that's true [that Creationists are basing their answers on a static book], surely that's better than basing it on a book that keeps changing, like many science books?

To which Jeebus responded:

Whoa. Please, please don't tell me that you are against the progress of mankind!

My comment was partly tongue in cheek, but apart from that, you are missing the point. There is nothing in my comment that indicates that I am against progress unless you first of all assume that the information in the "static book" is wrong, and needs to be corrected. That is your assumption, not one that creationists make. If the information is correct, that information can still be built on and added to, which refutes your comment about creationists being against progress. In contrast, many science books do have incorrect information that needs to be dropped or corrected in later publications.

Jeebus wrote:

The random process I'm referring to, is the observation that there are endless data that support Evolution - and therefore refute the ID/Creationist propositions.

That is your assertion; creationists don't agree.

Jeebus wrote:

But, when one (or a few) scientific phenomenon appear to have been guided by the hand of an immaterial being, it automatically means that Evolution is false, and that Creationism is on the money.

This just shows that you simply don't understand what creationists say, or that you can't read.

Creationists do not says that a few bits of evidence that doesn't fit with evolution "automatically means that evolution is false, and that Creationism is on the money". That is a straw-man argument. What they say, and what I have said on this page is that those (this) particular bit(s) of evidence are more consistent with the creationary model.

There are other arguments that creationists use also, but these do not include claims of disproving evolution on the basis of a few bits of evidence.

Jeebus claimed:

Ya'll spend all your time trying to un-explain completely random Evolutionary events, instead of making any observations or hypotheses or creating any data or theory or anything.

Simply untrue. Creationists do make observations, hypotheses, and theories. Your gross ignorance of what creationists do suggests that you ought to read some creationist material before pretending to know much about them.

Jeebus continued:

And you hang onto those few examples, as if your afterlife depended on it. Of course, there usually exist well-understood scientific explanations for these blindly chosen "exemplars" - these, of course, are completely ignored by the Creationist bandwagon.

Creationists don't "ignore" explanations. In fact they frequently (attempt to) refute those explanations. That is the opposite of ignoring them.

Jeebus wrote:

No Creationist model has ever accounted for anything.

Simply untrue.

Jeebus previously wrote

...due to it's "young" age [sic].

So I asked:

And who are you quoting when you quote "young"?

To which Jeebus responded:

So... you do, or do not think that the bones are very, very, very old?

Which does not answer my question of who he was quoting when quoting "young" that warranted a "sic" after it.

As for his question, I am not denying that I consider the bones to be "young" by your timescale (although, being less than 50 myself, and assuming that these bones are even 1000 years old, they are "very, very, very old" compared to me. It all depends on your viewpoint).

jaimito wrote:

Regarding fallibility of dating techniques, only the Pope (and only speaking ex cathedra) is infallible. So I heard.

I would say that only God (and, by extension, His book, the Bible) is infallible.

jaimito wrote:

If creationists accept conventional scientific dating methods and only their attitude is more sceptical than those of conventional scientists, the conundrum is solvable.

That's not the difference. When I indicated that creationists would use similar methods to non-creationists, I was thinking of things like (a) radiometric dating (more on that below), (b) which rock layer it was found in (but creationists put different ages on those rocks than do non-creationists), and (c) the extent of the decay.

Creationists have different presuppositions than do non-creationists. For example, creationists believe that about 4500 years ago there was a global flood, with consequent globe-altering affects. Just by way of example, one of these affects might have been to change the carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio in the atmosphere. This would therefore affect any C14 dates from pre-flood matter. Non-creationists, on the other hand, have a presupposition that there was no such flood, so therefore no reason to believe that C14 dates beyond a certain time are invalid.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about the existence or otherwise of the flood, merely using that as an illustration of how creationists and non-creationists will interpret the evidence differently, depending on each's worldview or presuppositions. It is not a case of being "more sceptical".

jaimito wrote:

We cannot validate extrapolations into the far past, but extrapolations to the near future can be tested and they have validated the calculation method and the theory it is based on. Carbon 14 decay calculations are based on exactly the same theory as dating methods based on different isotopes. If you accept dating based on C 14 decay, why not the others?

The methods can be tested on past dates with material of known age. For example, a piece of timber from a building in Europe that is known to have been constructed at a particular time can be tested to see if the C14 date agrees with its known age. Or a rock formed from a volcanic eruption in New Zealand last century can be tested by one of the methods available for dating rocks.

The problem is that there is no material available to be tested that has a known age (i.e. from historical records) beyond a few thousand years. Therefore, whilst the methods can be tested for dates up to a few thousand years (and this is much more than waiting to test into the near future), they cannot be tested beyond that period.

C14 has been tested on such material, and the method calibrated to the known dates. So C14 dates up to a few thousand years are generally reliable. Other dating methods have been used on rocks formed during volcanic eruptions but have frequently been shown to provide incorrect dates. If a method frequently gives incorrect dates on material of a known age, why should it be trusted on material of an unknown age?

jaimito wrote:

I have also a question on your acceptance of C14 dating results, which are considered very solid to 50 - 60 thousand years into the past: Do you accept it all the way or only to the limit of 6000 years?

I have pretty well answered this by now, but to be thorough, C14 dates are not so much "considered very solid to 50 - 60 thousand years into the past" as considered possible to 50—60 thousand years into the past. That is, that range is the theoretical dateable range for the C14 method, beyond which there will be no measurable C14 left to determine an age. (And that's not to deny that many will also consider it reliable over that range). But it is interesting that material that is dated by other radiometric methods as much older sometimes yields measurable C14! Which goes to show that at least one of the radiometric methods must be giving a false age.

#21738: — 04/13  at  12:15 AM
Thank you for your answer. I consider a privilege to talk to a creationist of your intelligence. If I understood you, you say there are no reliable, verified techniques to date anything older than historic times (circa 6000 years). Moreover, you hypothise that around that time a catastrophic occurance took place, which confused everything, making it impossible for us humans to ascertain former events. That our projections into the far past are wrong, because the said event acts like a mirror - we look into the mirror and think we are observing far away objects when in fact it is an optical illusion.

This scenario makes sense only if you presume the existence of a supernatural and powerful being that arranged things that way, in order to make us exist in a world of mirrors, deceptions and illusions. If we speculate that such being exists and cares to do things like that, there are no limits to the possible, for example, the world could have been created readymade just a minute ago.

What is interesting that in general, you do not deny that the world works in a coherent, consistent way following laws that can be discovered and understood, that science in general reflects the mechanism of the world and that science and not magic if effective. The only difference between us may be your theory that all is an illusion except the Bible. You may even accept that evolution could be a sensible explanation of the things we observe, with the proviso that what we observe is not true but have been purposefully arranged so as to deceive us. Our prejudices and presuppositions make us to interpret things in a wrong way.

I think if it is a question of interpretation, we have a shared basis and talk is possible. To show my openness and fearlessness, I would even take my daughter to enjoy a Dinosaur Park, in the same spirit as we visited Disney's Fantasyworld. The problem is, as PZ defined it, that "ignorance kills". If the people loses its faith in science, they will turn to charlatans to cure their diseases, they will stop vaccinating their children against polio, they too shall believe that AIDS is caused by witches and start hunting and burning them. All that superstition is out there, waiting to turn down the lights once again.

#21744: — 04/13  at  04:06 AM
jaimito wrote all the bits in boxes:

If I understood you, you say there are no reliable, verified techniques to date anything older than historic times (circa 6000 years).

That's about right.

Moreover, you hypothise that around that time ...

About 4500 years ago actually.

...a catastrophic occurance took place, which confused everything, making it impossible for us humans to ascertain former events.

That's going a bit far. It doesn't make it impossible. Rather, we will be misled if we don't take that factor into account.

That our projections into the far past are wrong, because the said event acts like a mirror - we look into the mirror and think we are observing far away ob jects when in fact it is an optical illusion.

It's not an optical illusion. That implies that it looks one way but is really another way. In this case how it looks depends on our presuppositions. To creationists, it doesn't even look old.

Sure, there may be some evidence that points to millions or billions of years, but there is also evidence that points to a lot less.

This scenario makes sense only if you presume the existence of a supernatural and powerful being that arranged things that way, in order to make us exist in a world of mirrors, deceptions and illusions. If we speculate that such being exists and cares to do things like that, there are no limits to the possible, for example, the world could have been created readymade just a minute ago.

This paragraph relies on the previous thought of it being an optical illusion, which it isn't. Creationists do not claim nor speculate that the supernatural being is in any way deceptive. In fact they specifically deny that.

What is interesting that in general, you do not deny that the world works in a coherent, consistent way following laws that can be discovered and understood, that science in general reflects the mechanism of the world and that science and not magic if effective.

What is interesting is that historians of science have acknowledged that the rise of modern science is precisely due to these very presupposition, presuppositions that are grounded in a Biblical way of thinking. Ancient Greek science never really took off because they believed that the gods could and would change the laws of nature on a whim. But the Biblical view is that we are created by a god who is consistent, and that his creation is capable of being studied. Thus modern science arose in Christian Europe and many, if not most, early scientists were Christians.

Atheism, by contrast, proposes that the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, and life and human beings are the result of that accident. That means that their thought processes are the result of an accident, yet they believe that their thought processes can be relied upon to study this universe.

The only difference between us may be your theory that all is an illusion except the Bible.

No, it's not an illusion at all. It's just a case of many people having different presuppositions on which they base their thinking.

You may even accept that evolution could be a sensible explanation of the things we observe, with the proviso that what we observe is not true but have been purposefully arranged so as to deceive us. Our prejudices and presuppositions make us to interpret things in a wrong way.

Apart from what I have already said, it is farcical to bring a charge of "deception" when that so-called deceiver has actually told us what he did. We then reject his explanation, come up with our own, then accuse him of deception because our explanation is incorrect!

I think if it is a question of interpretation, we have a shared basis and talk is possible. To show my openness and fearlessness, I would even take my daughter to enjoy a Dinosaur Park, in the same spirit as we visited Disney's Fantasyworld.

Living on the other side of the world, I have not been to Dinosaur Park (although I have heard of it). I expect that a better choice would be Answers In Genesis' museum currently under construction near Cincinnati.

The problem is, as PZ defined it, that "ignorance kills". If the people loses its faith in science, ...

A belief in creation does not equate to losing faith in science (as I hope is clear from my previous comments in this post), merely in the origins claims of many scientists.

...they will turn to charlatans to cure their diseases, they will stop vaccinating their children against polio, they too shall believe that AIDS is caused by witches and start hunting and burning them. All that superstition is out there, waiting to turn down the lights once again.

I truly believe that the best defence against that sort of thing is a belief on God. There is no reason to believe that a belief in God will lead them to rejecting medicine, etc. One of the pioneers of modern medicine, of whom it has been claimed probably saved more lives than any other, was the creationist Louis Pasteur.

Trackback: Mmm.. Dino Blood Vessels! Tracked on: Something Similar (67.18.183.130) at 2005 03 25 00:19:35
You might have heard that soft, Tyrannosaurus Rex tissue was discovered in a thigh bone cracked open to load into a too-small helicopter. Pharyngula has a great, illustrated discussion on the findings and says that the Panda's Thumb will have more com...