Jed Rothwell wrote:
Wesley Bruce wrote:
More closely resembling the treatment that creationists get in
science. I have creationist friends, PhD's, that have done a large
(170+) sample single blind test on radiometric dating and it Failed
completely.
I know nothing about these instruments, but that sounds highly
unlikely to me. It reminds me of assertions that hundreds of
cold-fusion scientists have all made gross errors in calorimetry. I do
not think that 170 professionals using well-understood conventional
instruments could all make giant mistakes. Large groups of scientists
may be wrong about theory, and they may be wrong about subjects they
have not themselves researched, but it is very unlikely that they are
wrong about how to do their daily work.
I better outline the experiments. The maths and chemistry is error free but the assumptions are wrong. The assumption of dating is that the gases argon, lead vapor, radon etc escape from the volcanic lava before it hardens.
The potassium, uranium etc then decays and the decay rate then allows the age to be calculated.
These dating techniques were calibrated against fossils to create the geological table used today.
But something was over looked. They never checked young lava for argon etc. It was inconceivable that lava would retain such volatile gases. In recent years friends of mine have taken many samples of lava that can't be more than 100 years old; 11 years in the case of Mount Saint Helens, 20 in the case of Hawaii. In one case they took about 20 samples
from a lava flow that flowed over a road in New Zealand, 1953. These samples are all young. They were sent to labs world wide and the calculated dates came back as millions of years old. When the results were published the labs scrambled to cover up or explain the results.
Some argued that the sample where miss handled in the field. Others argued that
young lava and old lava works differently. Suffice to say the arguments that
lavas are chemically different today than in the past is invalid. The basis of
uniformitarian science is that we assume the present processes are enough to
explain the past as geology shows it; no catastrophic floods are allowed. But
if the techniques can't tell new lava from old then no mater how good the math,
lab work or chemistry the technology of radiometric dating is dead. They just
have not admitted it yet. For a related paper see:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01
I am assuming that Bruce is not disputing the theory of operation of
radiometric dating, but rather the operator's skills. Perhaps he
disputes both. In any case, I have never heard of a case in which it
turned out that a widely-used, modern, conventional scientific
instrument did not actually function as claimed.
Call me wesley.
No I am disputing the very basis of the theory, it is unstated in all
the text books and it failed independent testing. There is also
selectivity in what dates are thrown out see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
We do have a few people that talk about changing decay rates, so does
cold fusion, but most creationists think it's irrelevant if new lava has
argon.
Although in general I oppose the suppression of scientific
discoveries, I do think there are many pernicious ideas that deserve
to be ignored, marginalized, or condemned because they are dangerous.
Creationism is at the top of the list, along with the notion that AIDS
is not caused by HIV, and that global warming -- if real -- would be
good for us (the Greening Earth Society's position).
I agree with you on Aids and global warming and I've taken the time to
look at both sides of each argument. I just ask you to be as open to the
creationists as you ask others to open to the data on cold fusion. No
creationist I know of has ever attacked cold fusion. The creationist
have had decades more experience at fighting these subtle and overt
attempts at suppression.
There is a fine line between disagreeing and suppressing. It is *very*
difficult for someone in my position to assert that any idea should be
ignored, because after all, that is what most people say about cold
fusion. Yet I believe there are firm standards -- permanent,
indisputable standards of truth -- and cold fusion should be taken
seriously precisely because it meets these standards. Cold fusion's
greatest strength is that the experiments are conventional and
grounded in 19th century physics. I also firmly believe that
creationism does not meet a single one of these standards; it cannot
be falsified or verified; and it has no scientific merit. Permanent,
indisputable standards cut both ways: some assertions fail to meet
them, and we should not hesitate to say so.
Good points; how basic is sending a sample of known age or properties to
a lab to verify that the labs test is valid. The creationist have had
their own peer review journals
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/> for decades and the
science used in them is just as strongly based in firm standards --
permanent, indisputable standards of truth -(good wording by the way)
but good maths, chemistry and physics is only as good as the assumptions
that sit unstated behind them. My primary point is that they have been
there, done what were trying to do and the fact that it's a public
debate and I can point you to institutions
<http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research> and references
<http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_papers>
means that creationism is winning ground world wide much to the horror
of Parks et al.
I realize that many people say that about cold fusion but they have
not studied the data, and many of them such as Taubes are not
qualified discuss the subject. I *have* studied biology, and I have
given serious consideration to creationist claims.
And you were never shown any data for creationism in your biology course
were you? Just as students today are not shown any data on cold fusion.
Worse still our teachers were never shown any data on either. As someone
who has access to both sets of data I can vouch that both creationism
and cold fusion are good science. If someone chooses to disbelieve
either then that is their right but in neither case can the disbelief be
called anything but blind faith. Some cold fusion skeptics will drive
fusion powered cars decades from now and will still blindly believe that
it is not fusion.
Even in the case of cold fusion, I do not oppose all forms of
suppression. For example, I think it would be premature to include a
discussion of cold fusion in a high school or undergraduate textbook.
I do not think we should embark on a billion-dollar Manhattan Project
to develop cold fusion energy. We do not know whether it can be made
practical, so we should not risk that kind of money. And, needless to
say, many of the claims made at ICCF conferences are weak, and many
have not been replicated, so we cannot believe them.
I think you have good reasons for wanting to prevent Al-Qaeda from
getting cold fusion nuclear subs or something. Dr Fleischmann has a good
point on that but the opportunity was lost in 1988 (not his fault I
might add). I don't think that will work now even if we wanted to put a
lid on it. The media will be demanding answers, so will students of all
ages and cultures. The billion dollar program will come but it probably
will be matched by thousands of school projects.
- Jed
Who is the greater scholar? Someone who studies one side of a debate or
someone who studies both sides of the debate?
