Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?
jar
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 226 of 304 (357944)
10-21-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
10-21-2006 11:45 AM


TRACS standards
We can learn a lot about TRACS standards by actually reading them. They begin:
Standards and Evaluative Criteria
1.1 The institution must have a Biblical Foundations Statement that includes
affirmations of tenets such as the following:
1.1.1 the Trinitarian nature of God;
1.1.2 the full deity and humanity of Christ;
1.1.3 the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible;
1.1.4 the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image;

1.1.5 the redemptive work of Jesus through his death and resurrection;
1.1.6 salvation by grace through faith;
1.1.7 the Second Coming of Christ;
1.1.8 the reality of heaven and hell;
1.1.9 the existence of Satan.
This is the very first of their standards and comes right out and says that to be accredited the school must teach non-evolutionary creation.
Looks like that since they have already arrived at the ultimate conclusion they have pretty much written off any chance of doing science or really any honest research at all.
You can read their accreditation standards at this link
You can also look at their benchmark here.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 11:45 AM RAZD has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 227 of 304 (357965)
10-21-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Brad McFall
10-21-2006 7:57 AM


Re: Getting the Buz on Miller
...or else reveal a physical barrier and thus indicate lack of species possibility from the phenotypic perspective...
Chris Miller may have said there is great variability but he also might have the sense that no matter how much change he has seen in his and other guppies they can not get them to change into plecostomous catfishes... even if they were still all guppyish genetically.
Well that seems to be one of the problems people were discussing. How would such a barrier be revealed, particularly through limited investigations of one species? "Sense" isn't going to cut it, especially as that can turn into a game of claiming... supposing large changes are seen (pheno or genotypically)... that guppiness remains.
I do understand that there could conceivably be a point (it is not logically impossible) in gene/phenotypic complexity, that an organism is limited in the number of possible changes it can ever have from that time forward. I suppose one can think of any organism as a Go board, with all possible moves dwindling given ongoing changes (plays).
That would not effect evolutionary theory itself, nor lend credence to creo or ID concepts. All it would do is modify our understanding of how genetic variation can be limited within an evolutionary framework.
The only way to hit evolution along this line, would be to show that such limits actually have been hit for all species we see in existence. And especially for species that we feel have evolved newer species.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Brad McFall, posted 10-21-2006 7:57 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Brad McFall, posted 10-21-2006 4:22 PM Silent H has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5287 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 228 of 304 (357975)
10-21-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Silent H
10-21-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Getting the Buz on Miller
Gosh, cut what?
I do not know what you guys are trying to read between the posts I post.
Consider- Gould's reading of DeVries then and read "fluctuating" as Miller's and mutational as "Darwin's" and make a sport out of it. I do not think I said anything "extraordinary " nor monstrous.
quote:
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by S.J. Gould
Well indeed it can affect THE VERY MOST RECENT DISCUSSIONS in evolutionary theory where Gould admits that every body who was attributing species selection to Stanley in the 70s had been formulated by De Vries in the 00s(written up in the early 90s). It WAS THIS idea, that was being proffered me at Cornell and by a philosopher and not a biologist. I do not think that Gould's reading is correct. De Vries seems to me to refer to "species" in the sense I was studying species IN an ecosytem while at Cornell contemporaneously not as that which is different for sorting vs selection. Any way the species CAN be a guppy or a sport, your pick but lets not cut the buz out of the justice here, pretty please. Look Gould never completed the comparison of Bateson and Goldschmidt. My guess is that history"" will read my own ideas in that line not in the special creation line but I can not speak for the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 3:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2006 7:04 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 304 (358012)
10-21-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Brad McFall
10-21-2006 7:57 AM


Re: Getting the Buz on Miller
Brad McFall writes:
I do think there are theoretical predilections that inhibit the search for such existence of boundaries. Chris Miller may have said there is great variability but he also might have the sense that no matter how much change he has seen in his and other guppies they can not get them to change into plecostomous catfishes(phenotypes) or cichlids(phenotypes) for that matter (but for the duration of his experience he might have first felt and thought that such larger change was possible) even if they were still all guppyish genetically. Gould simply calls this "lumped morphospace" without regard to the clade being discussed.
Percy asked that I leave off Chris Miller and I will honor that reqest, but so as to offer a measure of defense to my integrity, I stated up front that I was going by recall and not sure of specifics. Relative to you comment above, this seems to be the reason for Chris, in the seminar, to bring up the subject of the guppies and that purpose was to communicate to us that there indeed was a boundary as to how far the selection could go as per his observation of his hobby which I had misinterpreted as a research project. This was to argue against evolution and for ID creationism. I first confused this with mutation which he corrected me on via emial. The man does public seminars so the man should expect to be quoted and referrenced in such things as forums et al. Since he gave us no printed material to go on except one very brief page, all I had to go on was memory.
My apologies for reading too much into what Chris was doing. Btw, he did have bedrock core samples there to show us related to his occupation which he used in his seminar for observaton, stating that there were fossils in some core samples et al as he was discussing tetonics et al. I'll not say anymore about Chris Miller so please do not ask. I have nothing to back up anything anyhow since he left no printed specifics and appears to busy to address some specific questions I asked via email. It's been a few weeks and there was too much to remember and get it right. I see it was a mistake to use him and wouldn't have in retrospect.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Brad McFall, posted 10-21-2006 7:57 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Brad McFall, posted 10-21-2006 9:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5287 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 230 of 304 (358035)
10-21-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Buzsaw
10-21-2006 6:34 PM


Re: Getting the Buz on Miller
It is always fine with me Buz. I think your hearing such a person as Miller who has some subjective opinion at the very idea that can be at issue of what is a "species" was a good case perhaps for another thread. I will not bring this up as you wish as I have had the same thought myself but not with guppies. Holmes had a good question about how from ONE species one was supposed to know. That IS the problem. This is about science and I see now that you find this case of Miller to be about hobby vs research, Oh, well....
Edited by Brad McFall, : letter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2006 6:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 231 of 304 (358068)
10-22-2006 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Brad McFall
10-21-2006 4:22 PM


Re: Getting the Buz on Miller
Gosh, cut what?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I simply meant that a sense that something could be the case will not cut it as evidence, no matter how often or convincing that feeling is.
I then went on to try to discuss how one gets past the feeling toward actual evidence, and the limits such evidence would have.
lets not cut the buz out of the justice here
Well I think it is clear that buz misunderstood the true nature (or extent) of what Miller was doing, even from Miller's own perspective. I do however see how there can be a sense of such limits, even within a strictly evolutionary framework (the Go board analogy). The devil is in the details of obtaining such evidence, particularly in a way that could impact the whole of evolutionary theory, or in any way advance ID or creationist concepts.
I think people (such as Percy) are correct in pointing out how the scientific community have built up evidence which does not ultimately bar speciation, and in fact supports it. Also that people who traditionally try to buck that, do so by first ignoring much of the evidence which exists to create that model.
This does not even cover the fact that there are alternate avenues for speciation, or introduction of new mutational sources, such as from symbiosis. Thus there seems to be an isolation from work within the field to concentrate on rebutting one aspect of a larger theory which is not in and of itself a pillar.
Is that trying to understand a phenomena, or an attempt to argue we don't understand only in order to open the door for something wholly without supporting evidence (besides a book)?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Brad McFall, posted 10-21-2006 4:22 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 304 (358129)
10-22-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Percy
10-21-2006 8:36 AM


Re: Buzsaw ICR Science Link
Percy writes:
Conflicting interpretations of evidence can legitimately exist within science, and it happens all the time, but creationism is not one of these legitimate alternate interpretations. This is because during the "gathering of evidence" stage, which includes making oneself aware of existing evidence, creationism is most notable for the evidence it ignores. By ignoring inconvenient evidence creationism cuts itself off from the very universe it is supposed to be studying, and that is why creationism is not science.
But legitimate creationist science does not ignore inconvenient evidence. You keep ignoring my contention that science begins with hypothesis and the creationist hypothesis establishes a different perspective on which all the evidence observed is interpreted. We use exactly the same evidence you use. We do not ignore it. I gave the example of the fresh water ice in the arctic and you apparantly ignored that, in which animals (tropical, in fact such as mastadons, polen, plants, mud and such not native to the region are found. Secularists attribute the fresh water ice to subterranian rivers, as I can best ascertain whereas we attribute all this to the flood hypothesis.
My point is that neither of us ignore evidence used by the other. It's that as per our varied hypothesis from which we begin science we interpret the evidence differently. The problem is that you people expect us to debate and do our science on the premise of your hypothesos and our refusal to do that is erroneously taken by you as unscientific. This, imo is what is causing much of the evo/creo problems we are encountering in the science forums.
Percy writes:
A more significant reason for why creationism is not science is because creationism is not interested in resolving its differences with true science. It is not interested in building a consensus. It is not interested in participating in the collective activity of science to build a greater understanding of our universe. If they were interested in these things then they would be pounding on the doors of science with their evidence and demanding to let in through the process of submitting their research in the form of technical papers to journals and conferences. And if their views had any merit then they would be making discoveries and finding insights that true science is missing, and scientists would be beating their own paths to the creationist door.
I see the problem differently. How can you resolve the differences when you begin your science from a highly polarized hypothesis, your's requiring millions of years to effect life as observed today and ours being done relatively rapidly? Or when your Grand Canyon took millions of years and ours took relatively sudden catastrophic phenomena such as a ww flood leaving the probability of a pre-flood atmosphere far different than that of the post flood one? It becomes impossible for either of us to do science on the basis of the other's beginning hypothesis.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Percy, posted 10-21-2006 8:36 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2006 3:10 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2006 7:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 320 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 233 of 304 (358151)
10-22-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Buzsaw
10-22-2006 12:35 PM


Re: Buzsaw ICR Science Link
But legitimate creationist science does not ignore inconvenient evidence. You keep ignoring my contention that science begins with hypothesis and the creationist hypothesis establishes a different perspective on which all the evidence observed is interpreted. We use exactly the same evidence you use. We do not ignore it.
This is fundamentally wrong. You are just not equating like for like.
You are mixing the CONCLUSIONS of science with the HYPOTHESES of creationism. You are assuming that scientists are effectively working in the same way as creationists when in fact they are not.
The creationist hypothesis (using the specific example of flood geology again) is that the Earth is only several thousand years old and that many geological phenomenon can be exlplained in terms of rapid flow dynamics (i.e. flooding).
Creationists then interperet the various geological phenomenon in reference to that hypothesis.
The EQUIVELENT position would be that conventional geologists hypothesised that the Earth was billions rather than thousands of years old and then interpreted the evidence for geological phenomenon purely on that basis.
If this were indeed the case everything you say regads creationist flood geology being equally valid would be at least somewhat true.
HOWEVER this is just not the case.
The CONCLUSION (not the hypothesis!) that the Earth and it's geological structures were formed over billions of years is the result of verifying numerous smaller and more detailed hypotheses regarding erosion, forces, pressure, motion etc. etc. all founded in well established laws of physics and chemistry. Only once this CONCLUSION had been drawn regarding the age of the Earth was the age of the Earth as billions of years old used as the basis for other hypotheses all of which consistently verified the original conclusion.
There are many physical reasons to conclude that the Earth is billions of years old. Further hypotheses assuming that fact have then been repeatedly verified by prediction and discovery.
There is absolutely no physical reason to think that the Earth is only thousands of years old and that a worldwide flood occurred. Any interpretation of physical evidence based on that hypotheses has little more validity than the original asumption which has no validity at all.
If we were to follow the creationist method we would have to accept any old hypothesis plucked randomly out of the air as equal to an established conclusion as long as the asumption in question COULD conceivably explain the physical evidence in some way. This is obviously nonsense.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 12:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 9:05 PM Straggler has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 304 (358179)
10-22-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Buzsaw
10-22-2006 12:35 PM


Will You Please Stop Getting The Scientific Method The Wrong Way Round?
But legitimate creationist science does not ignore inconvenient evidence.
Can you show us some "legitimate creationist science"?
My point is that neither of us ignore evidence used by the other. It's that as per our varied hypothesis from which we begin science we interpret the evidence differently.
No. A hypothesis does not tell you how to interpret the evidence. It tells you what evidence you would expect to see if the hypothesis was true.
The problem is that you people expect us to debate and do our science on the premise of your hypothesos and our refusal to do that is erroneously taken by you as unscientific.
No. We require you to draw conclusions from your hypothesis and test them against observation. Your refusal to do that is correctly taken by us to be unscientific.
I see the problem differently. How can you resolve the differences when you begin your science from a highly polarized hypothesis, your's requiring millions of years to effect life as observed today and ours being done relatively rapidly?
By examining the evidence to see how old the Earth actually is.
It becomes impossible for either of us to do science on the basis of the other's beginning hypothesis.
Speak for yourself. I can calculate the consequences of a young earth just as easily as I can calculate the consequences of an old earth. And it is the latter which fits with observation.
---
The problem that you seem to have is that, having falsely supposed that what creationists are doing is science, you then falsely conclude that what real scientists do must be like what creationists do.
It is not.
Please go and read my three-line summary of the scientific method again until you understand it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 12:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 304 (358201)
10-22-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Straggler
10-22-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Buzsaw ICR Science Link
Straggler writes:
This is fundamentally wrong. You are just not equating like for like.
You are mixing the CONCLUSIONS of science with the HYPOTHESES of creationism. You are assuming that scientists are effectively working in the same way as creationists when in fact they are not.
You're spinning and obfuscating everything I said. I said:
1. We are using the same (equating) evidence. That's all we're equating. I gave the example, the Grand Canyon. We're both looking at the same sediment layering, et al.
2. I did not say we're both working in the same way.. Again, the only same thing is the evidence observed. As per the flood, I repeat;
a. Our hypothesis is a ww flood effecting disastrous tetonic movement, volcanoes, upheavel of mountain ranges, sinking of ocean floors, Mt St Hellens kind of cutting canyons, et al. We work to falsify that by the observed evidence whereas you work to falsify millions of years of sedimentation et al.
b. Our flood hypothesis, for example calls for a pre flood totally different atmosphere in which the elements such as carbon, nitrogen, et al are were much different than what is observed today. Your millions of years of uniformitarian planet assumes same elements relatively uniformly all those millions of years to assume your radiometric dating is correct.
Straggler writes:
The creationist hypothesis (using the specific example of flood geology again) is that the Earth is only several thousand years old and that many geological phenomenon can be exlplained in terms of rapid flow dynamics (i.e. flooding).
Creationists then interperet the various geological phenomenon in reference to that hypothesis.
That's not necessarily true. Not all creatinists, including myself are not necessarily YEC. For over three years now I've been saying I am not a YEC, in that my hypothesis calls for an unknown earth age, more likely old than young. Many others also are not YEC. We do not believe the Genesis account says how old the earth is.
Straggler writes:
The EQUIVELENT position would be that conventional geologists hypothesised that the Earth was billions rather than thousands of years old and then interpreted the evidence for geological phenomenon purely on that basis.
If this were indeed the case everything you say regads creationist flood geology being equally valid would be at least somewhat true.
Having a pre-flood atmosphere different than post flood does not require a young earth thousands of years old.
Straggler writes:
The CONCLUSION (not the hypothesis!) that the Earth and it's geological structures were formed over billions of years is the result of verifying numerous smaller and more detailed hypotheses regarding erosion, forces, pressure, motion etc. etc. all founded in well established laws of physics and chemistry. Only once this CONCLUSION had been drawn regarding the age of the Earth was the age of the Earth as billions of years old used as the basis for other hypotheses all of which consistently verified the original conclusion.
LOL! The science effecting your conclusion was based on a beginning hypothesis radically unlike mine/ours, factoring in uniformitarianism rather than a disastrous ww flood.
Straggler writes:
If we were to follow the creationist method we would have to accept any old hypothesis plucked randomly out of the air as equal to an established conclusion as long as the asumption in question COULD conceivably explain the physical evidence in some way. This is obviously nonsense.
No. To accept mine you need big time tetonic plate moving, canyon cutting, lava spewing, polar freezing, atmosphere changing, climate changing, life burying, oil and coal producing, fossil creating, sediment layering, catastrophic flood to cover the earth with water which was previously in the atmosphere as well as subterranian rivers et al. We believe the evidence best suits that hypothesis from which to interpret the observed evidence.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2006 3:10 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 10-22-2006 9:52 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2006 10:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22947
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 236 of 304 (358209)
10-22-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Buzsaw
10-22-2006 9:05 PM


Re: Buzsaw ICR Science Link
Hi Buz,
I really can't say it any better than Straggler and Dr Adequate already have. Science does not start with a hypothesis from which it draws conclusions. Science begins with evidence drawn from observation and experiment, and from these hypotheses are formed which further observation and experiment either confirm, deny or suggest modification. The foundation of science is evidence, not hypothesis.
Creationism begins with a hypothesis which is not founded upon evidence, and which in fact ignores evidence. Though you deny doing this, it is precisely what you describe when you say things like, "Our hypothesis is a ww flood effecting disastrous tetonic movement, volcanoes, upheavel of mountain ranges, sinking of ocean floors, Mt St Hellens kind of cutting canyons, et al." Your conclusions follow from your hypotheses, when it should your hypotheses that flow from the evidence you gather.
I again suggest you begin with an example of scientific research drawn from ICR or CRS. We can't use any example for which you're the sole source of information, such as Chris Miller or the arctic example. Please choose a paper from ICR or CRS that we can all see and read and reference and we will then point out what evidence is being ignored and any scientific criteria that are not being met.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 9:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 10:31 PM Percy has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 304 (358211)
10-22-2006 9:58 PM


ICR Science Research Project
I see the following research project as doing science from a creationist hypothetical perspective. If not, why not?
ICR's Claims writes:
Dr. Steven Austin, chairman of the Geology Department at the Institute for Creation Research, claimed (1992) that he had derived an Rb/Sr isochron for the plateau flows, which indicates an age of about 1.3 billion years.
One particular Precambrian layer known as the Cardenas Basalt has been dated by radiometric methods to about 1.1 billion years in age. The Cenozoic flows sampled by ICR thus are claimed to yield an age which is about 200 million years older than the Cardenas Basalt. But the Cardenas Basalt cannot be younger than the plateau flows, due to the geological relationships discussed in the first section of this document.
Austin says that his isochron age is the result of a "research project" (1992, p. i) undertaken by the ICR to "test the ages assigned by the best radioactive isotope dating methods" (1992, p. i). Dr. Austin suggests that the slope of his isochron line (indicating great age) is "unexpected" (1992, p. iii) and that his result "challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based" (1992, p. iv).
In other words, Austin claims that he has produced a seemingly reliable isochron age which must necessarily be wrong, and therefore the Rb-Sr isochron dating method, which is considered to be among the more reliable of radiometric dating methods, must be considered suspect.
Background on ICR's claims and isochrons
The damaging paper trail
In order to understand what is going on, it is useful to examine the paper trail. Prior to ICR starting the Grand Canyon Dating Project, Austin (1988) produced a similar isochron -- this time 1.5 billion years -- for the same lava flows. He used data taken out of a mainstream scientist's paper (Leeman 1975) to construct the plot.
A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by anglagard, posted 10-22-2006 10:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2006 10:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 1091 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 238 of 304 (358216)
10-22-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Buzsaw
10-22-2006 9:58 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Project
Buzsaw writes:
I see the following research project as doing science from a creationist hypothetical perspective. If not, why not?
I must agree, I see this as doing science from a creationist perspective. The cited article continues:
quote:
Criticism of ICR's claims
* This was not a "test" of Rb-Sr dating.
It is misleading for Austin to claim that he set out to "test" Rb/Sr isochron dating. The paper trail -- the 1988 Impact article -- documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows, long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own.
If isotopic dating methods are as unreliable as Austin would like us to believe, why did he have to rig his test -- by only selecting rock samples which were known in advance to fail it? If a mainstream scientist were to fix a test in this manner, their reputation would be demolished when that fact was uncovered.
* The wrong meaning is assigned to the dates.
Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.
In fact, as discussed above, the selection of non-cogenetic samples is sometimes used intentionally by isotope geologists. It is known to be a way to have an isochron dating method "look back" beyond a recent event to an earlier event -- the age of the common source of the samples. Thus, it is misleading for Austin to pretend that his resulting isochron plot should be expected to represent the age of the flows themselves.
A geologist in my acquaintance suggested that this FAQ should be very short:
It should merely state that Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologists have known all along: that the lithospheric mantle underlying the Grand Canyon must be older than the Cardenas Basalt.
The mantle is the source of much of the sampled flows' material, and Austin's sampling technique matches the technique one would use to obtain a minimum for the age of the flows' source.
* It's an insufficient case against isotope dating.
Austin (1992) suggests that he has "tested" the dating method. He claims that the false isochron, that he knew would result, is "unexpected." He goes as far as implying that all isotopic ages can be ignored when he suggests that nobody has ever "successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock." The first two claims are falsehoods, as shown above, and the third cannot be justified by ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
Young-Earth creationists cannot escape the fact that a large majority of isotope dating results are well-aligned with mainstream predictions, and equally well-aligned with geological relationships which even young-earthers would accept. For example, intrusive formations consistently date as being younger than the formations that they cut across. A laundry-list of anomalous dates will not change that fact. That only shows that the methods sometimes fail, which is not in dispute.
If Austin wishes to make a case that all isotopic results are unreliable (which he desires to do, in order to prop up the timescale that he accepts for religious reasons), he is going to have to do better than he has done here. All the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project shows is that a sample selection geared to yield the age of the flows' source... apparently does yield the age of the flows' source.
Doing science wrong is the creationist perspective.
What are you up to Buzsaw? Surely you read the entire article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 239 of 304 (358217)
10-22-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Buzsaw
10-22-2006 9:58 PM


Re: ICR Science Research Project
Dr. Steven Austin, chairman of the Geology Department at the Institute for Creation Research, claimed (1992) that he had derived an Rb/Sr isochron for the plateau flows, which indicates an age of about 1.3 billion years ... Prior to ICR starting the Grand Canyon Dating Project, Austin (1988) produced a similar isochron -- this time 1.5 billion years -- for the same lava flows.
So he KNOWS that the method he's using has (at that distance in time) an error bar of at least 0.2 billion years, and yet is claiming a discrepancy of that size as an anomaly?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 9:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2006 10:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 304 (358218)
10-22-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
10-22-2006 9:52 PM


Re: Buzsaw ICR Science Link
Percy, I did some homework before initially stating that science begins with hypothesis. Below is just one statement from a physics course site. There are other sites that agree.
Physics Course writes:
In science we begin an experiment with a working hypothesis or a proposed model for some phenomenon about which we have raised a question, but do not know the answer. A hypothesis is our assumed, initial explanation which we wish to test by experiment. A hypothesis is in the form of a statement which is our initial attempt to explain the phenomenon in question.
http://acept.asu.edu/courses/phs110/ds2/chapter2.html

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 10-22-2006 9:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by kuresu, posted 10-23-2006 1:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 10-23-2006 10:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024