Science at its worst

[Interplanner]

I followed a bit of the PBS Nature episode Mar.1, and all it did was reminded me how self-blinded scientists can be. 'The palantir only showed Denethor what Sauron wanted him to see--as another weapon to overthrow Gondor.'

In Patagonia, there is lots of buzz about recently found titanosaurus materials, including ACRES of scattered and broken eggshells. The shells are in good enough shape to see color, texture and final shape. The more useful discovery as far as the animals shape was the pile of bones, of course. (A further note on that below).

My point is that there is no way these ACRES of eggs are millions of years old, but only thousands. It's just not what happens in millions of years. Things don't have the crisp sharp edges in normal color etc.

Now, about the bones. What really seemed to be lacking was any diagramming of why the full site layout had the shape that it did. It was probably 150-200 feet from end to end and everything was contorted, twisted, etc. Instead they were removing things and 'analysing' them over at a remote lab. You could never do this in police forensics. I have seen other sites where they did indeed spend time with little flags, tags and markers to show what was where and how it related to the next, but here they were working with not one, but three bucket-loaders and with jackhammers to extract things. Jackhammers? Really? Everything to make sure it was 'dated' in millions of years before anyone could truly think through what happened. Don't want anyone thinking this was recent and slammed, jammed, blasted, pulverized by the fingers of huge oceans of water and ice gone bezerk in a massive global flood and vertical tectonic catastrophe!

Please review my DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS at Amazon.com. Free e.copies to those who want to review to contact me with PM or get me an address at www.interplans.net.

 

[patrick jane]

:think:

 

[Nick M]

:think:

Millions of years are not needed to make a fossil. Only the right conditions. How long? Surely less than 6000-10000 years. This tree was likely buried in Noah's flood.

 

[Interplanner]

good point; lots of examples like that

 

[SonOfCaleb]

The irony is there is no science empirical or otherwise that can date anything to millions of years. Such a technology to date that far into the past simply doesn't exist nor is known. These dates are merely just wild speculative guesses from so called experts in their field.
Somewhat also ironic that these wild estimates always seem to be nice round even numbers to 7 or 8 decimal places. The older the find the more 'credible' the 'Science' fiction, and generally speaking the more likelihood of procuring funding for new projects.

Carbon dating isn't capable of dating anything to more than a few thousand years and tolerances needs to be factored in when using Carbon dating depending on the state of the material that is being examined.

Pseudo Science was abundant in the late 19th Century. Its laughed at today. And yet not much has really changed..

 

[Jose Fly]

It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[PureX]

It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.

 

[Lon]

It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Goes both ways on TOL :noway:

Nice of you to provide a link that is NOT your area of expertise illustrating the point, no?

Here, I'm not science major, but this is a better response than your junk.

It seems that the argument is mostly against extrapolations. It looks to me that all data are extrapolated formula and guessing that the 50k limit of dating would apply without controversy. Such is an assumption, an educated guess. The problem? Every science book inaccurately gives data as if it were gospel. This is ever the problem with the science books. "Evolution-did-it" is just as bad, and imho, worse than "God-did-it." At least the one is true and the other a sloppy bin word that 'tells' and indoctrinates rather than describes and fosters better science understanding. "Evolution-did-it" is sloppy and inept conveyance.

 

[Lon]

I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.

:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!

 

[Jose Fly]

Nice of you to provide a link that is NOT your area of expertise illustrating the point, no?

???????? Did I dismiss an entire field of science that I'm not familiar with?

Here, I'm not science major, but this is a better response than your junk.

Thanks.

It seems that the argument is mostly against extrapolations. It looks to me that all data are extrapolated formula and guessing that the 50k limit of dating would apply without controversy. Such is an assumption, an educated guess.

Can you cite the paper you read where they merely assume/guess in the manner you describe?

The problem? Every science book inaccurately gives data as if it were gospel.

Examples?

This is ever the problem with the science books. "Evolution-did-it" is just as bad, and imho, worse than "God-did-it." At least the one is true and the other a sloppy bin word that 'tells' and indoctrinates rather than describes and fosters better science understanding. "Evolution-did-it" is sloppy and inept conveyance.

Again, do you have specific examples of textbooks saying "evolution did it"?

 

[Jose Fly]

:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!

Here, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life_and_education

 

[Greg Jennings]

The irony is there is no science empirical or otherwise that can date anything to millions of years. Such a technology to date that far into the past simply doesn't exist nor is known. These dates are merely just wild speculative guesses from so called experts in their field.
Somewhat also ironic that these wild estimates always seem to be nice round even numbers to 7 or 8 decimal places. The older the find the more 'credible' the 'Science' fiction, and generally speaking the more likelihood of procuring funding for new projects.

Carbon dating isn't capable of dating anything to more than a few thousand years and tolerances needs to be factored in when using Carbon dating depending on the state of the material that is being examined.

Pseudo Science was abundant in the late 19th Century. Its laughed at today. And yet not much has really changed..

Never heard of K-Ar dating I take it? Or Rb-Sr? U-Pb?

It's pretty clear your lack of familiarity with the topic when you come out with "there's no way to date things; they're just guesses." Quit getting your info from AiG and use an actual scientific outlet

 

[Lon]

Here, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life_and_education

Ah, is that all the further your own science prowess goes as well? Dabbling? It wasn't his degree. We've all had science classes, no? What are you wanting me to see here?

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, is that all the further your own science prowess goes as well? Dabbling? It wasn't his degree. We've all had science classes, no? What are you wanting me to see here?

Really? That's all you took from that? Darwin merely took a few courses?

 

[Lon]

???????? Did I dismiss an entire field of science that I'm not familiar with?

First of all, there is a difference between familiarity and any degree of prowess.
Second, are you familiar or do you assert prowess regarding Dunning-Kruger?
I'd think, perhaps, that it would take a bit more than an armchair assessment to assert whether one is apt in the area or employing no cognition and yet asserting prowess. I have some science background, yet I avoid these topics generally in engagement. I have to read and research a lot more than others and the information doesn't come as readily.

Thanks.

Lest we forget your main objective on TOL isn't to carrying on meaningful or intelligent conversation. :Z

If ever there were a moment where that wasn't the focus and goal, such would be a rare but appreciative and meaningful moment of exchange.

Can you cite the paper you read where they merely assume/guess in the manner you describe?

Here is a Christian that agrees with you, yet he asserts that these conclusions are extrapolations. He significantly believes because there are so many different extrapolations, that all agree, that the evidence points overwhelmingly to a specific age in approximation. Well, that's great, but it isn't important until, and unless we could do something about it with precision. An extrapolation like this doesn't help science, it is too broad as to be significantly meaningful (more later, but no good science is done by huge general figures that I'm aware of).

Examples?

Darwin was describing changes in finches and concluding that their beaks were adaptations. while I can agree with a lot of his observations, there is no reason to think 'evolution' or adaptation. Why? Because only a finch 'with' a stronger beak would have been able to crack the nut, or only one with a longer beak would have been able to reach into the bug hole. The point? It isn't 'adaptation.' This is an erroneous conclusion. The reason some finches had stronger beaks is they mated. That's it. The others either flew away or died. The reason some other had longer beaks is they mated. One of my kids may have a longer nose than the other. The only thing that would make longer nosed children afterwards is if they had kids with another with that trait. Evolution is a sloppy bin word where 'selection' (natural unecessary, it is either cognizant or climate related), etc. Using the overall bin word 'evolution' explains nothing and isn't as helpful as 'describing' what is going on. Evolution is such a large bin word that it loses its meaning and becomes nothing less than 'evolution-did-it' every time it is employed. We literally dumb-down science for kids and that's a shame. We'd all do MUCH better to describe what we are seeing. In this case: "Finches on this island have harder shorter beaks. Finches on this island have a longer and more slender beak. How did it happen?" Darwin didn't do that, he speculated as do most scientists. it is the way to get published by sensationalism. I believe my description of finch differentiation much more appreciable than Darwin's summary of 'why' it happened. Telling students 'what' happened accurately is better than an indoctrinating summary that can very well be wrong. Too often, science jumps to the indoctrinating 'tell.' Short-cuts cut off scientific inquiry. It is the difference between indoctrination and guided inquiry. One is exponentially better in a discipline trying to foster that kind of thinking in the first place. Science isn't math or religion, it teaches 'how to think' more than it is supposed to be giving unassailable answers. In fact, assailing and questioning is how science is supposed to be getting students to think about it's discipline. It is odd then, that science is so stubborn and threatened by theology especially Christianity, when these are the ones actually asking questions and employing, however carefully, the scientific method!

Again, do you have specific examples of textbooks saying "evolution did it"?

Yes, at every turn. Look here They throw in 'evolution' as the conclusion of the observations. One might agree with everything a scientist says, only to be shut down and walk away in dispute all because of the conclusion disagreement that isn't necessary. My brother and daughter are both science majors (one complete, the other in pursuit). They often differ on 'evolution' as conclusion yet are fully capable of doing excellent science. Why? Because agreeing with conclusion isn't what science is all about. Science is about discovering what works consistently and employing it. Simply disagreeing on the end description is unnecessary when both are agreeing on the data and what happens when such is applied to such. IOW, you, and other scientists and perhaps yes, we theologians can too, take some blame, over assert and ruin good science inquiry where we could do a lot of good if we'd just suck up our prideful conclusions. "Evolution" nor "ID" are necessary to cure cancer. Investigation and trial/error (the scientific method) is more important than indoctrination conclusions in the field of science, yet here we are arguing over exactly that. It doesn't matter to any science whether the earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. Why? Because we have no way to actually tell. Science is exacting and needs exacting measures to function. A ballpark doesn't do anything for any field of science, not even geology.

 

[Lon]

Really? That's all you took from that? Darwin merely took a few courses?

I got the gist. I've seen a few different renditions regarding his prowess. How would you suggest I balance those all out? It is certainly clear from even this article that it wasn't his primary degree or focus at the time. It should be even noted he showed no academic prowess, according to your article but preferred shooting and riding to actually studying. What did you happen to see beyond these?

My point? Not that Darwin didn't have prowess, but rather is a degree necessary for discussion? It seems to me that the Dunning-Kruger comment was nothing more than a dismissive debate employment. True?

 

[Stripe]

I followed a bit of the PBS Nature episode Mar.1, and all it did was reminded me how self-blinded scientists can be. 'The palantir only showed Denethor what Sauron wanted him to see--as another weapon to overthrow Gondor.'

In Patagonia, there is lots of buzz about recently found titanosaurus materials, including ACRES of scattered and broken eggshells. The shells are in good enough shape to see color, texture and final shape. The more useful discovery as far as the animals shape was the pile of bones, of course. (A further note on that below).

My point is that there is no way these ACRES of eggs are millions of years old, but only thousands. It's just not what happens in millions of years. Things don't have the crisp sharp edges in normal color etc.

Now, about the bones. What really seemed to be lacking was any diagramming of why the full site layout had the shape that it did. It was probably 150-200 feet from end to end and everything was contorted, twisted, etc. Instead they were removing things and 'analysing' them over at a remote lab. You could never do this in police forensics. I have seen other sites where they did indeed spend time with little flags, tags and markers to show what was where and how it related to the next, but here they were working with not one, but three bucket-loaders and with jackhammers to extract things. Jackhammers? Really? Everything to make sure it was 'dated' in millions of years before anyone could truly think through what happened. Don't want anyone thinking this was recent and slammed, jammed, blasted, pulverized by the fingers of huge oceans of water and ice gone bezerk in a massive global flood and vertical tectonic catastrophe!

The "scientific literature," which is how Darwinists refer to articles that conform to their religion, has almost no regard for the setting in which dead animals are found. There is usually nothing written about the position bones were found in, their relation to other finds, the type of rock encasing them, the position of the find within the strata, the layers above and below or the vertical extension of the fossil.

They skip all the forensic evidence in favor of a story about how the creature evolved.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Never heard of K-Ar dating I take it? Or Rb-Sr? U-Pb?

It's pretty clear your lack of familiarity with the topic when you come out with "there's no way to date things; they're just guesses." Quit getting your info from AiG and use an actual scientific outlet

Id prefer to deal with facts rather than hyperbole and your straw man statements, none of which are true in regards to me or what scientific journals, or source material i frequent.

So putting your hubris to one side and the above qoute which you've twisted and conviniently taken out of the context of what i actually said, matter of fact its clearly NOT what i said, are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not. For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....

 

[PureX]

:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!

There were no science degrees in Darwin's time.

Darwin was a scientist because he used the scientific method for investigating physical reality. That is the definition of a scientist, after all, not; 'humans possessing a science degree'.

Modern scientists are not 'following Darwin' the way religionists follow their religion. Modern scientists have used the scientific method to test and determine for themselves that most of Darwin's conclusions and predictions were accurate.

But of course you will remain willfully ignorant of all of this, because your religion is based on willful ignorance, rather then on honesty or a genuine interest in the truth.

 

[Lon]

There were no science degrees in Darwin's time.
Darwin was a scientist because he used the scientific method for investigating physical reality. That is the definition of a scientist, after all, not; 'humans possessing a science degree'.

:think: Jose disagrees with you. He thinks you must have a degree. My point was simply to point out that Darwin didn't either.
:think: Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi.

Modern scientists are not 'following Darwin' the way religionists follow their religion. Modern scientists have used the scientific method to test and determine for themselves that most of Darwin's conclusions and predictions were accurate.

That darn Darwin fish-ape-man chart is still so hard to get away from on science walls. Some have said they 'just like it' from a by-gone erroneous era and in tribute to the man :think: Christians were against the chart long before it was wrong in science circles too. :think:

But of course you will remain willfully ignorant of all of this, because your religion is based on willful ignorance, rather then on honesty or a genuine interest in the truth.

I don't think you dishonest, I think you Archie-Bunker-prejudice and consistently terrible/wrong at proper assessment because of the prejudism.