You know, i may not be an expert in this field, and having read through some of the material, it is overwhelming at first.
Ah, let me guess: this won't stop you from critiquing the methods, right?
But, I must admit, one thing that is largely showing out of all of this: the assumption that certian rocks are "older" or "younger" than other of the rocks.
Yep, right out of the professional YEC talking points. Which website did you use to become so knowledgable about radiometric dating?
And what makes you think we can't tell which rocks are 'younger' or 'older'? This is some of the most basic stuff one learns in Geology.
One way out of the problem is to say that they're composite, and that mixed dates are to be expected. But, isn't this all assuming that content or context of a rock (or rocks) is the age that -we- as human beings say it is?
Ooops, you left out a critical step. After making such an hypothesis we look for evidence that it is so.
We don't know much of anything about past events that we never saw for ourselves;
Are you saying that anything we have not witnessed is uknowable? Are you saying that past events have left no mark in the geological record?
how then can we say one result is bad while another is good? Good or bad as in relation to who or what?
In relation to other data. No radiometric date lives in a complete information vacuum. We do know certain things about the rock or can infer it from previous work.
And, let us face this, ...
US?? Sorry, you're going to have to face this one yourself.
...if an entire establishment has a personal or professional of interest in saying that the earth's rocks are so many of millions of years old (and much of their grants and funding come from defending this paradigm), are they really going to admit (especially to those who say that the earth is of nowhere near millions of years old) that they have built their practice around faulty reasons for a very long time? or that they've had philosophic reasons for wanting the earth to be millions of years old?
So, you're saying it's a conspiracy? You're saying that virtually
ALL geoscientists are deceivers? You really believe this? If so, we have no grounds for future discussion.
You accuse "YEC's" (?) of being careless, of intentional falsifying of their works.
Well, it has been documented.
"Careless" can be a double-edged sword. so can the term "cherry picking" or "fudging".
How is that?
i saw enough of this on state sponsored projects of all varieties many years back, where numbers and charts were fudged a little or alot just to make something appear better than what it really was. sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot, but always with a lie, and always in areas where the normal person had a hard time seeing what was going on.
And you never did anything about it? And you expect us to take your word here? As an admitted co-conspirator?
I wonder how much of house cleaning is needed in your own area, since you are all holding supreme in this area, and are making accusations that your critics are themselves liars?
As I said, let the facts speak for themselves. Want an example?
how many of the data are thrown out, or are contrary to what the paper reports in bold letters, because they are bad, not what you expect?
And just how do you know they have been thrown out? Which one of your favorite websites has told you this?
Let us be honest here; from what I read earlier,
Please document. What did you read and where did you read it? Please be honest now.
observed geologic events don't give dates that match with the actual event.
Examples please. We cannot address vague accusations.
How are we supposed to trust these dates when they are connected to events we never saw, either at the event, or the events leading to or after the isotopes were said to be closed in rock?
What dates? You have not given us any.
I live in the real world, have been around and seen how this sort of thing does its work in two opposite cultures.
Clearly, you know more about the dark side of science than I do. Where did you learn this?
As you say here: Money makes the world go round. And it's no different in science than it is in politics, no different for geologists or geochemists than it is for lawyers and laymen. Especially when personal or academic politics are mixed. If rocks are supposed to be "old" because books, groups, and your friends say so, then it is "old".
No. This is not always the case. You are talking about a cover-up of stupendous proportions. How long do you think something like that would last?
most people in areas like this don't even question their reasons,
I'm glad you are so knowledgable about scientists. Are you a psychologist?
because it is so accepted in their circles. Maybe this is why you accuse critics of being liars?
No, it is because we can document the occasions.
I will say for my part that I'd rather err on the side of being cautious regarding -any- interpretation of past events that we never saw for our own selves.
Or we could just avoid doint it at all. Or maybe next week, I'll tell my boss that I can't answer his question for another century or so. That'll work. Sorry, but I live in the real world, too.
Just because someone has a labcoat does not make them immune to the paradigms, peer pressures, or want of the numbers to "come out right" for own personal beliefs. Like I said, i've seen this all too many times in areas much more founded in real-world applied science -medicine, for instance. People are not robots; everyone believes in some kind of thing. and those who believe that a rock is "this" old or "that" old are no different.
Again, you don't think there is one honest scientist out there do you? Thanks for the vote of confidence.
and personally, my time hearing millions of years from many people have not sounded being very graceful.
Well, goodness, we wouldn't want that now, would we?
It reminds me of how engineers were treated when they said to others that things would not work for what the state was wanting, that the numbers weren;t coming out right, and that the reason for wanting big numbers in industry [geology included] was unrealistic and short of sight. They, the state, simply called them liars and wreckers and threw away their critics. Of course, the engineers and their criticisms turned out to be right in the end....
I thought you said there were all these conspiracies to cover up the truth.
Also, please document. You give us a little anecdote without any specifics and how are we supposed to address it? Escpecially when it isn't about scientist covering anything up???
™ Version 4.2