Examples of Dishonesty

NosyNed:I too agree that it is only fair to separate dishonest behavior from those that simply make a mistake. Some people just don’t know that what they’re saying may not be entirely true. I guess my question would be how do we know when it is just a mistake? Would the level of education make a difference? I recently attended a talk that was supposed to provide us with the scientific merits of a creation world view. Two individuals with PhDs (one with his in Organic Chemistry and the other with his in Biology (not sure of the field)), and one individual with an MS (Biochemistry) presented their views. Now, if a PhD biologist tells me with a straight face that all the dinosaurs were on the ark AND they were herbivores, can I conclude that he is being dishonest or should I chalk it up to a simple mistake? Or if he tells me that radiometric dating can’t be trusted because the decay rates of the isotopes may not be consistent, can I conclude he has made a mistake or can I call him dishonest? I guess what I’m trying to get at is that if someone with an advanced degree (MS or PhD) in a scientific discipline tells me nonsense like the stuff I mentioned above, can I conclude that they know what their saying is dishonest? I mean they do, after all, know about scientific literature and the scientific method. Personally, I view these individuals as dishonest, but I guess I could see how some people may think that they are making honest mistakes.

Hello jar:You start with: I agreeto a point. But I still think education does play a role. I’m saying that two people can make the same claim (decay rates have changed over time) and that one of them (let’s call them the layperson for lack of a better term right now) can simply be making a mistake while the other (a PhD scientist) is being dishonest.Then you say: Which is kind of my point. Who knows better the available facts and evidence (and/or where to find them) than a scientist (which these guys all claim to be)? IMHO someone with an advanced degree in a scientific discipline KNOWS how science is defined and how to conduct scientific investigations. To simple dismiss radiometric dating because to accept it would falsify their underlying religious beliefs is, to me, dishonest. Ok, I’ll concede the notion that the average person would have no problem accepting that the decay rates for radioisotopes are not consistent. But there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever to make this claim, and while your average "joe on the street" may not know this, an honest scientist would. By the same token, there is evidence to support the claim that the decay rates have not changed.Do you realize what it is they're trying to say? If radiometric dating aids us in our conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but YECs claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, then we have a bit of a discrepancy. We know the current half-life of these isotopes and I do not believe that this is what is being disputed. Instead, YECs claim that these rates have changedthat they were much faster in years past. That’s an understatement, to say the least. Think about it. For example, we have measured the half-life of ²³⁸U to be about 4.5 x 10⁹ years. Let’s say that the true age of the Earth is 6000 years. That would mean that if the decay rate for this isotope has decreased from a level that would have given that value (6000 years) if it would have remained constant, then we’re looking at a 750,000 fold change! That is to say, the current decay rate is 0.000133% what it used to be. And this has all occurred over the past 6000 years. That’s a 125 fold decrease in the rate per year. Why are we not still seeing this decrease in decay rate? Wait, has this variance somehow suddenly stopped? For the past 6000 years the decay rate has slowed down 125X per year and now it has suddenly stabilized? How convenient for young earth creationists. Plus, that's just for one isotope. We have many others and ALL of them would have to have seen a decrease in decay rate that SHOULD (according to YECs) give a value of 6000 years but no longer does. And since these other isotopes all have differing half-lifes but still support a 4.5 billion year old Earth, these supposed changes in decay rates would have to be consistent in their inconsistency.Keep in mind that I am by no means an expert in radiometric dating, and I’m not very good at math, so if I have screwed up these numbers (and I probably have) then please explain to me what is really going on. The point I’m trying to make is not the values I calculated, but rather the huge change in decays rates that would have had to have occurred in the last 6000 years in order to get the measured values we currently accept. My original premise was that a PhD organic chemist, a PhD biologist, and an MS biochemist have said that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have changed over time, and that they HAD to know that there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever to speculate in any way that this is true, AND that all the scientific data suggests just the opposite thing...which is, of course, that decay rates are now, and always have been, constant. Therefore, they were (and are?) being dishonest.Whew! Sorry for being so long winded (it's a bad habiut of mine), but I felt some level of explaining was necessary to clarify my position.