Goodbye from Pistolshot

“What is the definition of a scientist?”

If you publish your findings, conclusions, data, and means of reaching them, no amount of deceit, including self-deceit will matter. Others will be able to recreate and expand on the findings - or failing that, to reach different conclusions.

If you don’t publish your findings, conclusions, data and means of reaching them, you are not engaging in science.

Now you're back to "engaging in science" vs. "being a scientist".

The definition of scientist is important: not the least of which is the mantle of "credibility" to lay people.

This is the proof, btw, that Climate Change is becoming a religion:

1) argument from authority

2) $$$$$

As Leon Lederman (physics Nobel, once director of Fermilab) said:

"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."

And allowing the "priesthood" of science, with the allegiance to "scientism" to creep in (particularly as it gets co-opted by Marxists, much as liberation theology and seeding the seminaries with homosexuals attempted to co-opt the Catholic Church) will generate tremendous problems for the credibility of science as an institution, once it is clear that "scientists" were hoodwinking the public, and other scientists did not insistently put a stop to it.

Speaking of that, the Nobel to Gore (and to the IPCC, and to Obama, and ...Yasser Arafat!!?) threaten to diminish the prestige of a Nobel prize: throwing away the reputation and a pedigree painstakingly accumulated over a century, and throwing it away for some short-term cheap political leftist showboating.

Cheers!

“....generate tremendous problems for the credibility of science as an institution, “

I couldn’t agree with your point more

As for the difference between “engaging in science” and “being a scientist” it’s the science - the findings, the data, the conclusions, the willingness to lay everything out that is important, so it can be examined impartially, or with bias, for that matter.

So the former is most important, but one can’t be the latter without doing the former.

[[Where “creation science” fails is that it believes that because science is not absolute, that it is all false.]]

again with the misrtepresentation of ID and Creation science- they say no such thing- nor even intimate such a silly notion. They provide evidence showing WHY the evo claims are wrong- as I said before- you’ll find plenty of such evidnece on trueorigins.org

[[I’ve yet to see one that substantially refutes or alters any established scientific views.]]

Really? Because just a geenral searchwill reveal quite a bit actually

[[It also fails in taking due skepticism and then publishing alternate conclusions with all the data and research to back up the alternate conclusion]]

You haven’t looked too hard into ID science if that’s your position

[[No, I don’t think I’m overstretching. Science encourages questioning of established results and new approaches. That is why in order for science to be legitimate, it must be published, and data made available for scrutiny.]]

noone’s quesitoning that- ID science is presented to peer review and scrutiny- and many science sites have taken it upon themselves to try to refute the research of ID- however, like I mentioend, thsoe site’s claism are also refuted. The question is, which side presents them ost reasonable ‘beyond reasonable doubt case’? ID does inthat it doesn’t propose assumptions which violate natural laws

[[No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science. That’s why “creation science” isn’t real science.]]

Yes you are overstepping- to make such a claim ignores the facts- and for hte record- what ‘data’ are you referrign to that ‘real scientists’ engage in when making claims abotu things they base on assumptions about past events for which htere is no evidence, and worse yet, for which the evidence we have of todays events show that past events woudl have had to violate several key scientiific principles in order ror evolution to occure? you’ve overstepped by claimign that evolutionists, or ‘real scientists’ as you seem to suggest, present data to back hteir claims up, and you overstep by claiming creation science ‘isn’t real science’ because suppsoedly all creations scientists are negaged in deceit and cover-ups per your words and insinuations. Both premisses are false

[[“creation science” is based on literal Genesis - all reasearch need do is reach a conclusion that something is “just as it is in the Bible”. If someone is skeptical - they risk being held out as a heretic in the “creation science” community.]]

wow! Really? I’ve NEVER heard or read any such hting- apparently you have insight into this claim you’d liek to share?

[[Maybe there are genuine researchers in “creation science” that simply want to know the scientific facts before reaching conclusions.]]

‘Maybe’? you can bet on it

"Focus people, please. Other FReepers are not the problem."

Sometimes it does look like that....even for someone like me. Not that anyone cares but below is a self description.

I love Jesus Christ, America, American heritage, my family, freedom, America's heritage, Ronald Reagan, capitalism, The Constitution, the flag, low taxes, low regulations.

I believe God created the earth and humans. I don't have answers for evolution arguments.

I am considered the most outspoken conservative among those that associate with me. It has been this way since I was in Jr. High many, many years ago.

I use FR as my main source of information and I post many articles on other networks to do a small part to preserve what freedoms remain and possible turn back the socialist agenda.

I strongly support Sarah Palin and if the election were held today (either on the Republican primary or in the general), I'd vote for her early and often. I have never voted for a democrat, but have not always voted for Republicans.

I don't believe in AGW. I believe 0bama and the democrats are socialists intent on taking away freedom.

I am fiscally and socially conservative. I love our soldiers and military.

That being said, I belong to a group that is outside the so called FR mainstream.

I am a Mormon.

Five years ago if you would have told me others would say I was outside the conservative "mainstream" I would have laughed and laughed. To see some of the crap posted here about Mormons is...frankly...laughable also. Oh well. I love FR and most of the post here.

After arguing outside FreeRepbulic I can definitely that unless one is a troll, the people on FR are not the enemy. Try discussing issues with the general public.

Now that is scary.

Oddly enough, I’ve only ever seen Evos make the “6,000 - Young Earth” comments.

Those Evos really know how to use their Alinsky tactics.

Hmmm...maybe that’s the reason they’ve been called liberals.

No, you have a problem with all the evil people applying the science without considering Genesis.

See, I had such high hopes for you, but here's where you went stupid on us.

First of all, let me ask the obvious question - what do you even know about this whole issue of radiodating in the first place? Chances are, the answer is "not much," because you don't even seem to have understood the objections I presented well enough to present a credible response to them which may, in fact, be why you didn't do so.

How can you, with a straight face claim that scientists would ignore data that is presented to them with actual research and data to back it up?

I can do so with a straight face because everything I said in my previous posts is, in fact, experimentally true. If you disagree, then it is incumbent upon you to disprove what I've said, instead of just reaching deep down into your diaper and flinging the contents at me.

Fact - we know that zircons can form with interstitial Ar in them. Sometimes with quite a bit of it. This is shown both by field studies from actual rocks being formed, and in laboratory studies simulating the conditions in which these rocks are formed. Therefore, there is certainly a good reason to call into question the entire assumptive premise under which evolutionists operate when they arrive at their "long ages" for these rocks. This remains true, regardless of whether you wish to believe it or not.

Fact - we know for a fact that lead can be introduced into U-bearing rocks, and that U can be washed out of these same rocks, both of which will yield artificially old ages for said rocks. Again, calls into question the evolutionist assumptions. And again, this is all true, regardless of whether you want to hide your head in the sand about it or not.

So, instead of whining about me about creationists wanting to reject anything that "doesn't agree with Genesis," how about you start actually addressing the facts on hand? Because right now, you're not looking so hot.

If you like, I can also school your ignorant behind on exactly why evolutionist ideas abiogenesis in an "early earth" are also completely scientifically impossible, based on known science that is available to a sophomore chemistry student. You up for that?

Noted on calendar and page copy retained!!!! lol....

Keep me posted on what comes up.

Fact - we know that zircons can form with interstitial Ar in them. Sometimes with quite a bit of it. This is shown both by field studies from actual rocks being formed, and in laboratory studies simulating the conditions in which these rocks are formed. Therefore, there is certainly a good reason to call into question the entire assumptive premise under which evolutionists operate when they arrive at their "long ages" for these rocks. This remains true, regardless of whether you wish to believe it or not.

Can I interrupt your fit of triumphalism long enough to ask how zircons are dated using the K-Ar method, considering that -- contrary to your assertion upthread -- zircon (ZrSiO₄) does not contain potassium?

Furthermore, also contrary to your claims upthread, geologists do not simply assume that all argon in their samples is radiogenic in origin. They often and extensively test such assumptions, and often reject particular samples and rock types because of what they have learned from such experiments.

As an aside, many, if not most, creationist reports of discordant "dates," supposedly embarrassing to "evolutionists," cite experiments where scientists were doing experiments designed to test the assumptions behind various radioactive dating methods, and thereby document instances where the necessary preconditions do not apply. Creationists, safely assuming their acolytes will not check the references, simply lie about them, pretending the "evolutionists" (geologists) were expecting valid dates, when in fact they were expecting the opposite.

BTW, you can check the amount of atmospheric Argon in your sample by measuring the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁶Ar ratio. (⁴⁰K only produces ⁴⁰Ar, and atmospheric ratio of ⁴⁰Ar/³⁶Ar is known and stable.) Also, the Argon-Argon method was developed largely as a check on the validity of K-Ar dates.