Replies

JediGirl is expressing an opinion that medved's repost has been previously debunked and represents junk science. That's an opinion. It is very different from saying that "scientists agree that early earth atmosphere was not composed of hydrogen, ammonia and methane."

And her opinion appears to continue along the lines that if an idea has been refuted, it should not be repeated. One of the ideas in her posted article was clear that one should never quote an authority without being able to "explain the logic and science behind one's argument." Intellectual integrity would then suggest that she should be able to explain the logic and science behind any argument she makes, otherwise she should clip that part out of the article if she ever posts it again. Otherwise she is making the Medved mistake.

It is true that in this thread she has not championed radiometric dating. But I would expect her to use it in an argument against a creationist. Would she hold herself to the standards given in this article she has posted? Apparently she supports holding creationists to this standard...

Likewise, you appear to hold some sort of opinion concerning the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating. What your opinion is, I have no idea.

My opinion is simply this: if you agree with the article JediGirl posted, you must never use a radiometric dating argument in polite company unless you can "explain the logic and science behind" all of the math involved. If you don't see the need to do this with your arguments, then you don't believe the article. If we don't believe the article, it is as one of Medved's and ought to be treated as such. If JediGirl posts things like that often, she is as Medved. Well, maybe we'll cut her more slack. But let's be honest with ourselves, okay?

I chose radiometric dating as an example for three reasons

I thought there was a high probability that JediGirl would subscribe to radiometric dating. Perhaps she could verify this...
If not JediGirl, many who post to these threads in opposition to creationists have already used radiometric dating arguments. Correct?
Radiometric dating arguments are based on mathematical formulas that most people get from textbooks without understanding why the formulas are the way they are. That is, why is an exponential function used in the formula rather than, say, a logistic function? Even those who have seen the derivation of the formula from differential equations may not be aware of the probabilistic assumptions underlying them. Or they may not be aware of why it is considered reasonable that these assumptions would hold for radioactive decay. This type of ignorance is precisely what the author of this article was denouncing when it manifested itself in creationists. Shall we have a double standard?