Sunday, December 1, 2013

The Astonishing Scandal of "Mary's Bones"

I post this link referencing the recent paper by Mary Schweitzer, who has "solved the problem."

I point out that this episode has now reached the stage of outright, grotesque scandal.

If there is anyone who is prepared to understand why the entire research program into soft tissue preservation is a profound departure from the authentic scientific method; that is, if anyone can see what experiment was *not* done, which renders this entire episode scandalous and a true perversion of scientific method, I would like to hear from you.

If I do not, then my next post will explain why this is so.

UPDATE DECEMBER 2 2013:

"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."---Karl Popper
  • Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions


I want to let you in on a dirty little secret.

According to Karl Popper's Theory of the Scientific Method above, Mary Schweitzer and team have retired from the game.

They have decided that scientific statements do not call for any further test; specifically, the scientific statement that Mary's Dino Bones are scores of millions of years old.

They have also departed from the scientific method as elaborated by Popper in these specific ways:

"Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is."

>>Evolution forbids Cretaceous fossils to be significantly <65mya.


"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific." 


>>If evolution is not refutable by the conceivable event that a Cretaceous fossil is found to be <<65mya, then it is non-scientific, that is: it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice."

>>If evolution is not refutable by ANY conceivable event then it is non-scientific, that is: it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it." 


Any genuine test of evolution in the face of Mary's Bones will be seen to be an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. If the test is seen to be, instead, an attempt to defend or support evolution, then we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."



>>Evolution forbids Cretaceous fossils to be significantly <65mya.

This represents a testable, risky part of the theory of evolution if and only if:

Any genuine test of evolution in the face of Mary's Bones will be seen to be an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. If the test is seen to be, instead, an attempt to defend or support it, then we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

C14 testing Mary’s Bones is a genuine attempt to falsify, or refute, the risky prediction of evolution that Cretaceous fossils cannot be <<65mya. “Long age biopreservation” is not a genuine attempt to falsify, or refute, the risky prediction of ToE that Cretaceous fossils cannot be <<65mya.

Therefore, if “long age biopreservation” research is chosen over C14 testing of Mary’s Bones, then: we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

“Long age biopreservation” research has in fact been chosen over C14 testing- therefore:

we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

>>Since attempts to explore long-age biopreservation are not a genuine test of the theory, they should not count as confirming evidence, because they cannot be considered a serious attempt to falsify the theory.

Therefore, “long age biopreservation” research, chosen in preference to C14 dating, and excluding C14 dating altogether, confirms we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

“Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

>>“Long age biopreservation” is, exactly, a “conventionalist twist”; a “conventionalist strategem”. It is justifiable only on the basis of a metaphysical conception of science- “leading paradigm”- which is directly contradictory to the actual, distinctive characteristic of science: falsifiability of “leading paradigm”.

Therefore any preference of “long age biopreservation” research, over the crucial experimental test of C14 dating, confirms:

we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.


[I]“One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”[I]

In the face of the refusal to C14 date Mary’s Bones, it is established that the theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian synthesis and its timeline, is not the result of a scientific research program.

It is a metaphysical research program, and should be assessed as such.

<<65mya Cretaceous fossils cannot be accounted for within the consistent predictions of the ToE.

I conclude:

The Darwinian theory is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

11 comments:

  1. I'm wondring if the experiment proves that iron can preserve tissue for 100 million years, since they only tested it for 2 years

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great point, Alex, but there is something even more fundamental........if we have an observation that presents a clear anomaly- soft tissue in Cretaceous rock radiometrically dated to 65-80 mya, for example, we have a delicious, wonderful, scientific dream come true- a well-defined contradiction between two well established assumptions.

    The first well established assumption is that soft tissues cannot last anywhere near 80 million years.

    The second well established assumption is that the bones must be 80 million years old, since the rocks are dated radiometrically to that age.

    We have a contradiction, the most precious thing in science.

    It means one or both of the assumptions must be wrong.

    The scientific method tells us what our next step must be.

    HINT: It IS NOT "let's keep fudging around with a way to make sure only ONE possible outcome is considered."

    More tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You'd think soft tissue could and should be carbon dated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They would answer that carbon dating doesn't work on objects less than 20,000 years old.

    And they KNOW that these Dino bones can't be anywhere near as young as that. So there's no point in testing, and even if you did....and they dated 5000 years old....the dates would be wrong.

    So basically....they don't need to date the bones cuz they know the date of the bones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any such argument is a perversion of the actual scientific method, and an insult to the intelligence of those funding such fraud.

      Delete
  5. Couldn't agree more Rick.

    Aren't there more examples of soft tissue being found in dino bones? I thought I read somewhere that there are many such specimens now?

    Who has dibs on the specimens and has anyone written to them to suggest carbon dating?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check out:

      Check out:

      http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

      Delete
  6. Rick, I just recently watched your 40 min video presentation on youtube and loved it; I thought it was excellent. I’ve watched it several times and have recommended it. Had me laughing out loud, I really like your style. Would love to see more of it. Have you any more creation/geocentric type of videos out there? And I’m so eager to see the The Principle; can’t wait!
    Here's a Kent Hovind video about carbon dating and how it doesn’t work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
    Also, google images for: polystrate fossils, these are petrified trees that span multiple layers of the “geologic column” proving that these layers are not millions of years old because trees don’t stand up for millions of years.
    michael

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Michael.

    That's the only YouTube I have ever done, glad you enjoyed it ;-)

    The issue is not whether C14 dating is a clock- it isn't, any more than other radiometric dating methods are clocks.

    The issue is whether Mary's Bones present measurable amounts of C14.

    If they do, then the claim that they are scores of millions of years old is false ;not on the basis of any alleged correlation of carbon year to sidereal or solar year, but on the basis of the presence of any C14 at all, at levels measurable by current AMS tests.

    ReplyDelete