Irreducible complication

Annachie wrote:DDhv, I think by the way you use the term that you should find a dictionary and look up what a scientific theory actually is.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I have a few questions:

Can someone please explain the evolution of the eye in the box jelly.

How life exists around the anoxic Black Smokers.

Why for half of earth's existence there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere (GOE).

How those nasty cyanobacteria decided to form colonies and develop chloroplasts

how fossils are created ... and destroyed by natural processes.

What the difference is between a "Scientific Theory" and Something Charlie and I scribble down on a cocktail napkin after our third pint. Call it "Porter Theory"

WW, you want someone to paraphrase a three or four year science degree into a comment here?
Beyond me. Mind you, all that information is available both in university textbooks and by sensible Googling. I say sensible, as there are a lot of crackpot theories on the net.

I'm just going to answer the only interesting question he asked. The rest, as Daryl has pointed out, can be found either by googling or by doing some more indepth research that would be beyond the scope of a forum post.

WeirdlyWired wrote:What the difference is between a "Scientific Theory" and Something Charlie and I scribble down on a cocktail napkin after our third pint. Call it "Porter Theory"

In actual science, there are multiple levels of knowledge. At the beginning stands the Observation: Apples fall from trees and gain speed as they fall. Then comes the hypothesis: There must be an external force acting upon the apple to cause this acceleration. From the hypothesis, experiments can be derived: Do apples fall the same way in a vacuum? Is the acceleration constant, or is it dependant on the weight of the falling thing? Once the experiments are done, and the data tallied up, we arrive at a theory: Earth exerts a force of around 9.8 m/s^2 on everything. This of course leads to further hypothesises: That the force exerted is proportional to the weight of the Earth, for example. These additional hypothesises can in turn be tested, confirmed or disproven, and be refined into theories; at the end of this process, you arrive at Newton's laws of gravity.

The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it has been tested and proven experimentally, and that the experiments are documented in such a way as to allow others to repeat the experiments you did to confirm your results.

A Theory, in scientific parlance, is the highest level of knowledge available, because it has been proven and can be used to make predictions (i.e. we can use Newton's Laws to describe and predict a lot of interactions that can be observed). Theories, however, are not unassailable: If new observations are made that can not be explained through the mechanisms described in the original theory, then it needs to be either revised or discarded; When we had evidence that Newton's Laws were insufficient to describe the behaviour of particles at or near the speed of light, a new theory was required (in this case, relativity).
Now, this new theory has to fulfill a bunch of constraints, of course: Not only does it need to explain all previous observations with the same or better accuracy as the existing theory, it also needs to account for the new phenomena that observation has shown to exist.

Intelligent Design or Creationism or whatever you want to call it does not fulfill that constraint. It cannot supercede evolution, because it does not make a single prediction that evolution cannot match. It cannot be tested experimentally, because there is no way to design an experiment to prove the presence or absence of a creator entity. As such, and given that most of the observational evidence brought forth by Creationists is based on misunderstandings of basic facts and shoddy theoretical work (Seriously, read that critique of Dembski's ideas I linked to), it is no wonder that creationism and its proponents are just as discredited as flat earth believers.


WeirdlyWired, please answer a question in return: Why are you unable to find these things out for yourself?

WeirdlyWired wrote:
snip

What the difference is between a "Scientific Theory" and Something Charlie and I scribble down on a cocktail napkin after our third pint. Call it "Porter Theory"

IMO, knowledge deals with primary evidence. Since there can be true evidence and things falsely called evidence, we need to test them, primarily by repeating observations and experiments.

Theory deals with our understandings. A theory enables us to extrapolate. Sometimes this is very far beyond the actual observations.

Again, there can be true understandings, and false ones, so they need to be tested. The scholastic method of testing them is for agreement with currently accepted theories. The scientific one is looking for observations (knowledge) which falsify the theory. It is not possible to prove any theory true: there is always the chance that we have not yet correctly understood the relationships between the facts. Look at the difference between Ptolemaic astronomy and Copernican astronomy - both explained the known astronomical observations of that time. In the 1920s, someone even showed that by assuming the "inertial framework" was fastened to the stars, instead of the earth, it was possible to produce a consistent mathematics of Ptolemaic astronomy that fit all the things which a rotating earth predicted. What makes it unscientific is that there is nothing observed with which the earth is stationary. IMO, this is a good demonstration of why logic and reason by themselves are never enough to make a theory solidly scientific. Many of the Greek philosophers made this error, although they produced important contributions.

A theory is only scientific when it is falsifiable, and attention is paid to contrary logic and observations, not just supporting ones. Any theory's supporters who ignore contrary observations, are doing scholasticism, not science. Since people who disagree with any theory are the most likely to find a falsification, all observations should be recorded, not dismissed on theoretical grounds. We can have fun looking at opposing theories, but we also should provide links to observations. I really like a good bibliography


This doesn't mean it is easy!

The E wrote:Have you heard of the Great Oxygenation Event? We have geological evidence that free oxygen was rare to nonexistant during the time period where single-celled life developed.

I've heard of it, but haven't before had a chance to look at that theory's assumptions.
Thank you for linking to a paper with bibliography. Even with this, it is work to determine what the assumptions are, without such, it is almost impossible.
My disagreement is with the idea that any theory is proven.
Tentative acceptance is the most I'll give.

BTW, I'm checking to see if anyone put George Muller's prayer journal into the net. I've found mention of it being published in the early 1900s (several volumes, over 3000 pages) but they provided no links. Some people are using like methods, and quite a few say they do so, but ignore the importance of good records, not hinting at needs, and other precautions Muller used. If there has been cherry picking in the extracts and summaries, some random sampling should show it - if I can find the primary observations.

My personal experience with such is from my higher school years. Working my way through kept finances tight. Once I wanted to attend a christian conference three states away, but only had $0.72 to my name. Praying and sticking out my thumb produced a driver within 80 miles, who was going right by the conference center. Coincidence is possible. This is the only time I ever got one ride going that far, let alone that convenient (He even offered me meals without my asking. He was wanting a companion for the long trip.). The other two were mission trips during vacations with a group that insisted no offerings be taken, only prayer for the trip be asked for (no hints allowed), and if someone asked about donating, to do no more than give them needed contact information.

Our data centers contain videos with evidence about police actions. We could also also store primary experimental and field evidence. Pointers to these could go in the bibliographies. Since vandals and souvenir hunters exist and damage primary field evidence, it might be a good idea to have these include the field worker's name, the date, and a code to the actual location. Photographs can eliminate duplicates, while still verifying their existence. Researchers can get the actual locations from the field worker or his group, as one geologist did from Dr. Steve Austin. Thus one might be labeled "Nautaloid, Dr. Steve Austin, Phd, Ye/Mo/Day, Grand Canyon location xxxx."

My conclusion is that theories are easy. The part that is work is solidly examining the evidence. The hardest part is choosing to examine observations provided by those who disagree.

From: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso ... sletterad=

People with a different vision of the world are not answered but characterized -- as people needing to have their consciousness raised or as people who "just don't get it."

Politicians choose to be ignorant also!

Can anyone point out where any politician with one POV suggested methods to test it? Or other theorists: FWIR, nowhere in "Das Kapital" did Karl Marx suggest any tests for the basic assumptions

Creationists, whatever they call themselves, are obsessed with Being Right. All of their efforts are directed toward attempting to prove that they are Right and everybody else is Wrong, that there is nothing new to be learned because a bunch of superstitious primitives Knew Everything About Everything 3,000 years ago.

True scientists are not satisfied to just Be Right. You never learn anything new by Being Right. Scientists direct their efforts toward finding parts of their theories that are wrong or incomplete, and ways to improve them by incorporating new facts.

Scientists believe only in facts that can be proven, and only to the limits of that proof. They extend provisional belief to some things that do not conflict with known facts, while seeking ways to test them. They call this a Hypothesis. It’s not right, it’s not wrong, it’s just an idea awaiting evidence.

Sadly, some scientists do become obsessed with Being Right, and waste their efforts defending their pet hypotheses, even against actual evidence that they are wrong. This is unfortunate, but does not discredit all of science.
-----------------
Complex questions never have simple answers. Hell, most simple questions don't have simple answers.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Creationists, whatever they call themselves, are obsessed with Being Right.

snip

that there is nothing new to be learned because a bunch of superstitious primitives Knew Everything About Everything 3,000 years ago.

True scientists are not satisfied to just Be Right. You never learn anything new by Being Right.
snip

The creationist assumption is that the creator has not been silent, and is to be trusted.

The intelligent design assumption is that entropy applies to information, so low entropy information requires an adequate source. Currently, the only source we know for high level information is intelligence.

One advantage to corresponding with those with different basic assumptions is that sometimes there is more insight into your own thinking. As a result of these posts, I've realized that in addition to the observation > hypothesis > theory axis, with the webs of assumptions and logics involved, I evaluate ideas on the basis of their information levels and how much they depend on other theories, ie how direct is the link to observation.

Being Right is a scholastic flaw. It is not limited to one group of theories. The intelligent design theories do not require a young earth creation - assuming long ages and processes simply moves the design features from recent to the patterns of action of the eighteen currently accepted nuclear particles and their results. If the existing universe necessarily produces life, the information content is in the basic laws. They don't even require a creator, although that fits Occams razor.

Example: the E mentioned a source on the great oxidation event. I looked over the bibliography to the extent possible on the web. Some excellent research is being done there. However, they assume uniformitarian geology, and I've not yet found a way for forming extensive strata, conformed to their neighbors, to commonly occur without evidence of: gullies and valleys if above water, depositing evidence if below water, and above all, without truly large movements of water producing them. Most of the strata show evidence of very large scale sheet erosion and depositing.

On research by creationists, you might look at: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Radi ... r-Ever.pdf

or: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/R ... lutons.pdf

or from: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/T ... ronomy.pdf

In order for a design argument to be valid, it must be demonstrated that any other configuration would not work. The root of the problem here may be a lack of a concise definition of design that can be objectively applied.

My objection is not to people making assumptions and doing research based on them. I object to the scholasticism of ignoring observations that don't fit currently accepted theories. Even someone with a poor theory can produce good observations. Someone who disagrees with accepted theory is more likely to look at things most don't think about.

How many times an accident has produced new, totally unexpected results. Jenner's cowpox vaccine came from good observation, but the ability to produce many vaccines came from the accident of Pasteur Institute researchers letting their bacterial material dry when they went on vacation. The whole field of radioactivity started when Becqueral, investigating florescence, left film, some keys, and a uranium mineral in a drawer for a time. There have been near misses also,. I read of a student doing Vitamin C shortage studies who found one subject who didn't get symptoms. He hypothesized a gut bacteria producing vitamin C, but instead of working to discover it, he used an antibiotic to prove his hypothesis. The object, as you correctly point out, is not to prove ourselves Right, but to find out things we don't yet know.

It would be nice to have all research adequately funded. However, even better would be a solid cultural pattern of posting all raw observations in the net, as is now possible.

Of course, this might result in some theories being upset

the E wrote:I am glad you agree that creationism is bullshit.

No, just needing more research. So does evolution. Neither is proven scientifically.

the E wrote:The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it has been tested and proven experimentally, and that the experiments are documented in such a way as to allow others to repeat the experiments you did to confirm your results.

I would change "proven" to "not yet been disproved" due to my assumption that there is always a possibility that one or more explanation(s) closer to reality is either not conceived, or not well tested BTW, some people have been examining published papers, and finding that too many published paper's results cannot be repeated. This may be one reason why many sciences are still soft:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-replication-2795802

DDHv wrote:The creationist assumption is that the creator has not been silent, and is to be trusted.

No, the creationist assumption is that a creator entity exists.

The intelligent design assumption is that entropy applies to information, so low entropy information requires an adequate source. Currently, the only source we know for high level information is intelligence.

Thereby showing that they misunderstand the terms "information" and "entropy".

One advantage to corresponding with someone who has different basic assumptions is that sometimes there is more insight into your own thinking. As a result of these posts, I've realized that in addition to the observation>hypothesis>theory axis, and webs of assumptions and logics involved, I evaluate ideas on the basis of their information levels and how much they depend on other theories, ie how direct is the link to observation.

You do know that this criterion is fundamentally flawed, in that no scientific idea is formed without soem form of observation first, right.

Being Right is a scholastic flaw. It is not limited to one group of theories. The intelligent design theories do not require a young earth creation - assuming long ages and processes simply moves the design features from recent to the patterns of action of the eighteen currently accepted nuclear particles and their results. If the existing universe necessarily produces life, the information content is in the basic laws. They don't even require a creator, although that fits Occams razor.

Yes, they do. If, as you said in the beginning, ID is based around the assumption that intelligence is the only known source for low-entropy information, then a creator entity is required. If no creator entity, and thus no intelligence, is involved in the genesis and evolution of life, "Intelligent Design" loses its meaning as a moniker.

Seriously, this is basic logical thinking.

Example: the E mentioned a source on the great oxidation event. I looked over the bibliography to the extent possible on the web. Some excellent research is being done there. However, they assume uniformitarian geology, and I've not yet found a way for for extensive strata, conformed to their neighbors, to commonly occur without evidence of: gullies and valleys if above water, depositing evidence if below water, and above all, without truly large movements of water producing them. Most of the strata show evidence of very large scale sheet erosion and depositing.

The question is, are you competent to evaluate these sources in depth?

On research by creationists, you might look at:

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Radi ... r-Ever.pdf

or:

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/R ... lutons.pdf

The first paper seems mostly solid research (although I hasten to add that I am not competent to evaluate what is written on its merits, only in terms of its formal aspects), but stumbles in the final paragraph:

However, as specified by the prophet Ezekiel, the anointed cherub was covered with every precious stone in the garden of God at the dawn of time (Ezekiel 28:13–14). According to Revelation 21:19, the foundations of the wall of the eternal city are decorated with all manner of precious stones. Hence, diamonds truly are for ever!

This is nonscientific nonsense that should have no place in what, to a first reading, is a pretty straightforward geology paper.

The second paper starts off with the bullshit right away:
It assumes that the biblical flood happened (strike 1) and that the evidence of long-half-life isotopes in those radiohalos (indicating an age of several million years) shows that, during the end of that event, these diamonds were artificially aged by the creator (strike 2 and 3).

This is unscientific nonsense. Without citing adequate sources, the existence of the flood is assumed, and without showing a possible mechanism, artificially accelerated aging is presumed.
This is actually a marvellous example of creationists ignoring everything proper science tells them or twisting real observations into a pretzel until they fit in with their presumptions. I cannot take this approach seriously, and I wonder why you do, DDHv.

My objection is not to people making assumptions and doing research based on them. It is to the scholasticism which ignores observations that don't fit currently accepted theories. Even someone with a poor theory can produce good observations. Someone who disagrees with accepted theory is more likely to look at things most wouldn't think about.

On the other hand, someone working off of assumptions that cannot be tested or even challenged (see the existence of a creator entity as an example) may make valid observations, but arrive at bogus results when it comes to interpreting those observations.

(I also find it interesting that Dr Andrew Snelling, credited as coauthor on both of the articles you linked, apparently maintains a dual identity as both a young earth creationist and a mainstream geologist. This, to me, does not make him seem credible in either capacity.)

How many times an accident has produced new, totally unexpected results. Jenner's cowpox vaccine came from good observation, but the ability to produce many vaccines came from the accident of Pasteur Institute researchers letting their bacterial material dry when they went on vacation. The whole field of radioactivity started when Becqueral, investigating florescence, left film, some keys, and a uranium mineral in a drawer for a time. There have been near misses also,. I read of a student doing Vitamin C shortage studies who found one subject who didn't get symptoms. He hypothesized a gut bacteria producing vitamin C, but instead of working to discover it, he used an antibiotic to prove his hypothesis. The object, as you correctly point out, is not to prove ourselves Right, but to find out things we don't yet know.

It would be nice to have all research adequately funded. However, even better would be a solid cultural pattern of posting all raw observations in the net, as is now possible.

Of course, this might result in some theories being upset

Repeat after me: Eyewitness reports are not reliable. Raw observations, at the levels where they can actually change our understanding of things, require expensive apparatuses and years of education to make these days. We are long past the point where random observations by laypeople can disprove theories.

I would change "proven" to "not yet been disproved" due to my assumption that there is always a possibility that one or more explanation(s) closer to reality is either not conceived, or not well tested

And you would be wrong to do so. Any given theory is nothing more (and nothing less) than our best approximation to reality. Everyone who has had a class in the Philosophy of Science understands this. There is no need to try to "clarify" scientific language in the way you suggest.

BTW, some people have been looking into examining published papers, and finding that too many published paper's results cannot be repeated. This may be one reason why many sciences are still soft:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-replication-2795802

The replication crisis is a very real thing and needs to be addressed, but addressing it would mean that politicians would have to keep their hands off of relevant budgets.

The E wrote:
snip

Example: the E mentioned a source on the great oxidation event. I looked over the bibliography to the extent possible on the web. Some excellent research is being done there. However, they assume uniformitarian geology, and I've not yet found a way for for extensive strata, conformed to their neighbors, to commonly occur without evidence of: gullies and valleys if above water, depositing evidence if below water, and above all, without truly large movements of water producing them. Most of the strata show evidence of very large scale sheet erosion and depositing.

The question is, are you competent to evaluate these sources in depth?

I've seen erosion from a field producing a beginning gully of several inches depth after only one heavy rainstorm. It seem unlikely that millions of years would pass without much more erosion. I've also seen deposition in the form of mud bars, sand bars, and gravel bars. The observation was that the size of said bar was always a fraction of the size of the moving water flow. Many strata are known to stretch for hundreds of miles. These are observations.

This is actually a marvellous example of creationists ignoring everything proper science tells them or twisting real observations into a pretzel until they fit in with their presumptions. I cannot take this approach seriously, and I wonder why you do, DDHv.

snip

On the other hand, someone working off of assumptions that cannot be tested or even challenged (see the existence of a creator entity as an example) may make valid observations, but arrive at bogus results when it comes to interpreting those observations.

For evidence, you might look at the demonstration of George Mueller. For over 60 years, he maintained a prayer journal, with one page recording when he began to pray about something, and the matching page recording when the results came.

(I also find it interesting that Dr Andrew Snelling, credited as coauthor on both of the articles you linked, apparently maintains a dual identity as both a young earth creationist and a mainstream geologist. This, to me, does not make him seem credible in either capacity.)

This assumes that mainstream geology is a body of knowledge and understanding, rather than a consistent method of inquiry, intended to improve our K&U.

How many times an accident has produced new, totally unexpected results. Jenner's cowpox vaccine came from good observation, but the ability to produce many vaccines came from the accident of Pasteur Institute researchers letting their bacterial material dry when they went on vacation. The whole field of radioactivity started when Becqueral, investigating florescence, left film, some keys, and a uranium mineral in a drawer for a time. There have been near misses also,. I read of a student doing Vitamin C shortage studies who found one subject who didn't get symptoms. He hypothesized a gut bacteria producing vitamin C, but instead of working to discover it, he used an antibiotic to prove his hypothesis. The object, as you correctly point out, is not to prove ourselves Right, but to find out things we don't yet know.

It would be nice to have all research adequately funded. However, even better would be a solid cultural pattern of posting all raw observations in the net, as is now possible.

Of course, this might result in some theories being upset

Repeat after me: Eyewitness reports are not reliable. Raw observations, at the levels where they can actually change our understanding of things, require expensive apparatuses and years of education to make these days. We are long past the point where random observations by laypeople can disprove theories.

Are we really? Even records can be false. Photographs can be photo shopped. Given enough records from enough different sources, accuracy is possible. Layman or professional observations can be valid. Elevating any theory above observation is the scholastic's fault. Error can come from bad assumptions, bad logic, or false observations. The more different viewpoints which follow the scientific method, even when they do so trying to prove a point which is not accepted at present, the greater it is likely that someone will find any given error. Theorists need observations to work from, and no one can observe everything.

BTW, some people have been looking into examining published papers, and finding that too many published paper's results cannot be repeated. This may be one reason why many sciences are still soft:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-replication-2795802

The replication crisis is a very real thing and needs to be addressed, but addressing it would mean that politicians would have to keep their hands off of relevant budgets.

The politicos are not the source of all the problems, but they do seem to make things worse. The refusal to elevate solid observation above theories is the root problem. A theory only allows extrapolation from what we do know - it is not knowledge in itself, and making any theory primary makes accidental new knowledge more difficult, by producing a tendency to incremental improvement only

DDHv wrote:I've seen erosion from a field producing a beginning gully of several inches depth after only one heavy rainstorm. It seem unlikely that millions of years would pass without much more erosion. I've also seen deposition in the form of mud bars, sand bars, and gravel bars. The observation was that the size of said bar was always a fraction of the size of the moving water flow. Many strata are known to stretch for hundreds of miles. These are observations.

That's nice, can you answer the question now? Are you competent to make observations and interpret them correctly, and are you competent to read reports by others and interpret their conclusions correctly?

For evidence, you might look at the demonstration of George Mueller. For over 60 years, he maintained a prayer journal, with one page recording when he began to pray about something, and the matching page recording when the results came.

It's an example of what I was talking about. Mueller was convinced prayer was effective in eliciting a response from his God. He took down his notes with that understanding in mind. It is a subjective account that relies entirely on Mueller's interpretation of events, and which cannot be verified by external sources. It's not "evidence" or "proof" in any scientific sense, it's not even particularly good observation.

This assumes that mainstream geology is a body of knowledge and understanding, rather than a consistent method of inquiry, intended to improve our K&U.

Let me rephrase: This guy has published papers in respected journals that are based on accepted theories in mainstream geological research, and has also published papers in creationist journals that contradict those same theories.
So, which of those articles is good research, and which are hoaxes?

Are we really? Even records can be false. Photographs can be photo shopped. Given enough records from enough different sources, accuracy is possible.

Yes, we are. No layman will ever be able to make observations about the fine structure of the universe without access to some form of high energy physics equipment and years of study of the matter. No layman observation can be made to prove or falsify evolution.

Layman or professional observations can be valid. Elevating any theory above observation is the scholastic's fault. Error can come from bad assumptions, bad logic, or false observations.

Which laypeople are bound to make.

The politicos are not the source of all the problems, but they do seem to make things worse. The refusal to elevate solid observation above theories is the root problem. A theory only allows extrapolation from what we do know - it is not knowledge in itself, and making any theory primary makes accidental new knowledge more difficult, by producing a tendency to incremental improvement only

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The replication crisis comes about because replicating results is not seen as productive work by the people writing the checks; it's not even seen as particularly glamorous work by the scientific community at large.

The E wrote:
Thereby showing that they misunderstand the terms "information" and "entropy".

IMO, information is organized data to 1)communicate, 2)cause the execution of an action, or 3)establish a structure. With low entropy a relatively small number of ways let that pattern exist. High entropy ones have many ways for the pattern to exist. Random intrusion tends to increase entropy. For this not to happen requires an adequate filtering mechanism. Irreducible complications exist that cannot be reached by any known series of small steps. An amateur can observe the lack of observations and refuse to accept what is currently a purely speculative theory.

The E wrote:snip

That's nice, can you answer the question now? Are you competent to make observations and interpret them correctly, and are you competent to read reports by others and interpret their conclusions correctly?

Which observations, and which reports? If researchers ignore things that anyone can see, why should we assume they are not choosing to ignore something else?

From: http://constitution.com/creationist-win ... alifornia/

Mark is also a fossil hound and has been on a number of dinosaur fossil digs. When he gets back to the lab, he searches to see if there is any soft tissue or evidence to show that the dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. On one particular dig, Mark recovered a 48-inch-long Triceratops horn, in which he discovered soft tissue.

Mark published an article on the soft tissue in a December issue of the prestigious secular journal Acta Histochenica. The title of his article was ‘Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus.’

Mark’s paper was strictly a science paper and made no mention or reference to his religion, the Bible or the possible age of the Triceratops horn. However, it is obvious to any rational person that soft tissues and beautiful cells he found could not be millions of years old.

His boss didn't examine the evidence, but fired him instead.

snip

It's an example of what I was talking about. Mueller was convinced prayer was effective in eliciting a response from his God. He took down his notes with that understanding in mind. It is a subjective account that relies entirely on Mueller's interpretation of events, and which cannot be verified by external sources. It's not "evidence" or "proof" in any scientific sense, it's not even particularly good observation.

Have you even investigated this? Or are you assuming you already know the answer? In the historical sense, can you point to any contemporary report of any falsity in his reports? Alternately, can you point to where someone used a contemporary weather report or other solid historical data to falsify any of those accounts where the answer depended on that data? If not, remember that consistent repeating of results is one thing that makes evidence scientific in the first place.

snip

Let me rephrase: This guy has published papers in respected journals that are based on accepted theories in mainstream geological research, and has also published papers in creationist journals that contradict those same theories.
So, which of those articles is good research, and which are hoaxes?

Based on, or using the language of? Like Mark Armitrage, ref above? Copernicus was smart enough to arrange publication after his death. I will be looking at Andrew Snelling, Phd's mineralogicao publications.

Are we really? Even records can be false. Photographs can be photo shopped. Given enough records from enough different sources, accuracy is possible.

Yes, we are. No layman will ever be able to make observations about the fine structure of the universe without access to some form of high energy physics equipment and years of study of the matter. No layman observation can be made to prove or falsify evolution.

Are major investments needed to see logic errors, assumptions, or lack of observations in the published reports? An amateur may not be able to understand some things, but why can't he report truly on those thing he does understand and see?

Layman or professional observations can be valid. Elevating any theory above observation is the scholastic's fault. Error can come from bad assumptions, bad logic, or false observations.

Which laypeople are bound to make.

Why bound? Have we become blind to the physical world? For a partial list of some professionals re the ID theory, read: https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011 ... id-theory/

snip
The refusal to elevate solid observation above theories is the root problem. A theory only allows extrapolation from what we do know - it is not knowledge in itself, and making any theory primary makes accidental new knowledge more difficult, by producing a tendency to incremental improvement only

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The replication crisis comes about because replicating results is not seen as productive work by the people writing the checks; it's not even seen as particularly glamorous work by the scientific community at large.

Total agreement on the replication crisis. Theory is elevated by being thought productive and glamorous work, observation, especially that intended to confirm or otherwise already reported work, is not so seen. I've learned in my own life the critical importance of looking at things more than once, by making mistakes when I assumed I was right the first time


Examples: Miller, J. 2012. Time to reset isotopic clocks? Physics Today. 65 (6): 20-21.

When heated to plasma, bare nuclei of rhenium radioisotopes decay a billion times faster than normal. See Bosch, F. et al. 1996. Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re- 187Os Cosmochronometry. Physical Review Letters. 77 (26): 5190-5193.

Kinoshita, N. et al. 2012. A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System. Science. 335 (6076): 1614-1617.

The assumption for decades has been that radioactive half lives are known, and unchanging