Being a priest and discerning a vocation to the priesthood are two different things.

Time out everyone -    


Banezian is a priest.  He told us so around the time he first joined Cath Info.  Just wanted to remind everyone.


OK - time in!    :boxer:

All the worse that he's spreading such errors.

... Geocentrism has come up in the discussion, but it's not what the thread nor my remarks are centered on.

As for peer pressure, it is definitely a factor in the conformity equation which scientists are subject to whether they want to admit it or not.  You say, "There are plenty of disputes in all fields of science."  Hmmm?  Would that quality as a vague generality?

Yes, that's vague; that's me trying to figure out what exactly you think "peer pressure" does in science?

Do you think it inhibits new ideas? To some extent, but that means those proposing a new idea may need to do more testing or provide more data to convince people, and it may take some time for acceptance, even decades.

Recently (Feb 2018) Sarah Stewart and a grad student proposed a new model for the origin of the moon. It explains the key data about composition as well as the old model and also says something about angular momentum. It's new, so those skeptical are testing it. The current "best theory" is 40 years old but that didn't seem to stop them.

I also have experience with another paradigm shift. Someone had an idea for a new analysis technique, and presented it. Some thought "that should work" and about half a dozen people were in a position to apply the new technique quickly. As papers came out, the majority in the field were skeptical. There was a significant setback when one person using the new technique presented an analysis that was quite different than results using standard techniques. (Turned out he had done something wrong separate from the new technique.) Especially after that setback, those using the new technique did comparison analyses with other techniques and came prepared for questions at presentations, and eventually won people over. It took about 10 years to get general acceptance of the new technique coupled with a good understanding of when it shouldn't be used. There are still a couple people in the field who refuse to use this new technique in any circuмstances, and one still says something negative about it in practically every paper he writes.

So what effect does "peer pressure" have?

Yes, that's vague; that's me trying to figure out what exactly you think "peer pressure" does in science?

Do you think it inhibits new ideas? To some extent, but that means those proposing a new idea may need to do more testing or provide more data to convince people, and in extreme cases may take a couple decades for acceptance.

Recently (Feb 2018) Sarah Stewart and a grad student proposed a new model for the origin of the moon. It explains the key data about composition as well as the old model and also says something about angular momentum. It's new, so those skeptical are testing it. The current "best theory" is 40 years old but that didn't seem to stop them.

I also have experience with another paradigm shift. Someone had an idea for a new analysis technique, and presented it. Some thought "that should work" and about half a dozen people were in a position to apply the new technique quickly. As papers came out, the majority in the field were skeptical. There was a significant setback when one person using the new technique presented an analysis that was quite different than results using standard techniques. (Turned out he had done something wrong separate from the new technique.) Especially after that setback, those using the new technique did comparison analyses with other techniques and came prepared for questions at presentations, and eventually won people over. It took about 10 years to get general acceptance of the new technique coupled with a good understanding of when it shouldn't be used. There are still a couple people in the field who refuse to use this new technique in any circuмstances, and one still says something negative about it in practically every paper he writes.

So what effect does "peer pressure" have?

I'm not going to spend my time trying to educate you on what effect peer pressure may have and often does have in the everyday world of the scientific establishment.  You appear fairly intelligent so if you are honest and sincere (and I'm not trying to imply that you are not) about your inquiry the docuмented material is there for the viewing -- on something called the Internet and in something called libraries.

As for your anecdotes and anecdotes in general -- they may be interesting, or they may be boring, but very rarely are they ever a good source from which to extrapolate to some generalized contention, whether it be pro or con.  That's why it is not uncommon for people who are short on facts or solid proof to use them as they see fit in debate and some other discussions.

Ok klasG4e, I tried, but if you won't make your point, then there is nothing to discuss.

Go back to p. 10 where I state: "Still waiting for your best shot or give it your best 3 or whatever how many best shots you want -- best shots at proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) long-ages that is."  I'm still waiting.

Go back to p. 10 where I state: "Still waiting for your best shot or give it your best 3 or whatever how many best shots you want -- best shots at proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) long-ages that is."  I'm still waiting.

Fine. Radiometric dating based on radioactive decay are established methods. These methods put the oldest datable earth rocks at 3+ billion years, and the oldest datable meteorites at 4+ billion years. Contamination can be detected with isochron approaches, which also do not assume particular initial conditions. At least for alpha and beta decay, decay rates have been found to vary little with environmental conditions.

I'm expecting you don't accept radiometric or isochron dating. Why? (Please don't tell me about a method giving spurious dates for things that shouldn't be dated with that method.)

Jayne, I should have answered your question. In fact I just did a copy and paste job and did not examine it meticulously as you have done. 

Only the author could answer you or as klas has advised Hugh Owen. 

As a note of interest Owen had his conversion to the Catholic faith through studying the questions surrounding Origins. His conversion from the dark side of life, as his father was deeply involved in the eugenics movement and the United Nations.

See http://www.daylightorigins.com/hugh-owen-evolution-and-the-catholic-creation-story/

All the worse that he's spreading such errors.

.
But apparently it's getting to be quite popular for priests to spread errors.
Look at all the errors Paul VI spread and now he's canonized, for crying out loud.