Soliton signing out!

Golly- I made a mistake after posting about 20,000 words today- I posted Radiometric instead of AAR Method- Gosh- ya got me-

Now answer hte quesation- Which is the accurate method? What are you measuring against to KNOW that you’re preferred method of dating fossils is accurate? What say you to the confessions by hte good doctor that we’re not in equillibrium & the fact that anyone that uses methods to determine ages are doing so based solely on a priori beliefs?

The ‘rebuttle” You posted has absolutely NOTHING to do with hte article I posted- Is AMS accurate, and IF so, how does htis confluict with your a priori belief? Obviously, AMS is supposed to be far more accurate, and as such, would show that the BONES (Human fossilized bones) are much much younger- your little cut and paste does absolutely NOTHING to discredit that fact. All it is is a cop out! The article link I posted is talking about the age of the bones, and how the new AMS method is far more accurate- showing that hte old method was indeed wonky, or that the assumptions and a priori beliefs of htose dating fossils over-rode the actual results which didn’t copnform to their long age hypothesis!

Don’t try to wiggle out of htis one- Are the bones young or not?

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]”

[[But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method]]

That is a lie- it has been shown to PROVE that the AAR method is INNACURATE- You are citing lies as your defense? Wow!

[[The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate,]]

Hmmm- What a Cop out- These same scientists who ASSUMED they were accurate in 5the first place are now crying foul because a new method proves they were wrong, and they are trying to blame the creationists for simply pointing out how hte new tests have done so? Wow! Talk abotu twisted reasoning-

Keep posting your rebuttles Coyoteman- they just get funnier and funnier when we get to see how these folks try to squirm their way out of their mistakes and try to defend their dying long age hypothesis’

You said: [[“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these “ancient” skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?

No, its another example of creation “science” in practice.]]

Good golly- you can’t post a true ‘rebuttal’ can you? That is NOT what they were stating- they ARE statign that the AMS is MORE accurate- not less as you state- so your whole remainder of your post is irrelevent and dishonest- Not sure where you cut and pasted it from- but perhaps you should find a more relevent site to do so from when trying to rebuttal points

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete. On the same grounds, human and dinosaur bones which have retained enough carbon to be tested by this precise method will be shown to be relatively young provided they are done in blind tests. That means samples used are not identified by where they came from.”

Truth doesn't matter?

God's Law is the foundation of Truth — and also of morality and justice. The well-being of our immortal souls depends on it, as even the classical Greek philosophers knew very well.

Socrates, in the Phaedo, reasoned that "man, made for justice [Dike, which is eternal, immortal], which he could and should love, must be immortal because he was made and ordained for something immortal. He tries to show that the body is a kind of veil separating the understanding from the glorious vision of justice to which it is naturally united. This means feeling and confessing a holy God, the unknown God of the Athenians" [cf: Acts 17:23]. (A. Rosmini, Psychology)

Rosmini adds a most interesting footnote to this passage:

The intimate sense of moral good as something eternal for which human beings are made has great influence on the spirit of upright men and women. Whether real or imaginary, the discourses of the dying Socrates inserted in Phaedo demonstrate this truth. If they are invented, Plato would never have expressed them so wonderfully unless he had believed them to be highly likely and totally in conformity with the noble character of a person whom he wishes to show as a type of the just man.... 'The very integrity of life, which is contrary to bodily nature, gives the soul ... confidence as it reflects on itself and notices, at one and the same time, the separation of body and soul, together with [the soul's] manifest immortality'.... If this feeling of the immortality of the soul is so strong in upright, virtuous people, how does the notion of mortality originate? It springs from vice, from wickedness, which makes flesh [i.e., materiality] the object of our thought. The light of decency, and consequently our feeling for what is immortal, is thus extinguished in thought.

"The intimate sense of moral good" has been universal among humankind going back millennia. Whether it be the civilization of ancient Egypt, of the ancient Middle East, Judaism, the classical Greeks, Christianity, the themes of immortal souls, an afterlife, and divine justice are so universal, cross-culturally, that one is led to surmise that there is something "in-built" in human nature that everywhere and at all times recognizes and acknowledges what constitutes moral good and justice (oftentimes if not always found out "the hard way"). In all cases so far known, such ideas are predicated on divine law; i.e., they are founded in divine nature, in God's Logos — His Truth.

The Christian understanding is that man is made in God's likeness, or image. By this we understand that man is a spiritual being, ensouled, possessing reason and free will. (Plato himself evidently thought that man was the image of the Cosmos, itself a divine creation; man, thus, is "microcosmos," i.e., at a twice-remove from the God of the Beyond from which all existent things derive their being.)

The problem for the atheist is, by denying God, one is placed into the position of having to deny the soul which God made (e.g., our own soul, thus the possibility of all subjective experience, the ability to think, etc.). By denying God, the world of creation is denied any objective truth; reason itself has no objective guide; the very laws of nature, of science, become inexplicable "mysteries."

Moreoever, in rejecting God, and thereby the soul, you must deny the immortality of loved ones lost to physical death....

Of course, you may be thinking, "all this spiritual stuff is just nonsense. If it ain't physical or material, then it simply ain't."

But here, by "spiritual," we need to understand "immaterial." Immaterial things are of course not directly observable by means of the five senses. But jeepers, there are even "physical" things you can't see: You can't "see" the wind, for instance — not directly; but you know it's there from its effects; i.e., a dust storm, swirling fallen leaves, etc. Spiritual entities are like that, too.

You indicate that truth matters to you. But what do you mean by "truth?" What you can see or detect with five senses? Such objects must be "physical" or "material" in order to be so detected. But is pi worthless because we can't "see" it? How about the first and second laws of thermodynamics?

In effect, you are asking Pilate's question just as HE asked it: What is truth?

Evidently he, like you, did not see that Truth with a capital "T" must have a divine Source; for Truth itself is eternal, universal. Without its root in God, "truth" slides into the mere opinions of men. Thus morality and justice have no defense in the world of disordered men; the Good becomes a meaningless word....

Hope you'll come back soon, Soliton!

How did I guess?>

:^)

I’m tired- and you’re posting accusatiosn that simply are untrue- and you’re talking in circles abotu subjects that aren’t even being discussed- noone is using hte AMS to refute Radiometric dating- they are using it to refute certain radiometric methods- but not to worry- there are plenty of other evidences which refute the other methods as well- which you’ll find in the list I provided a coupel of posts ago- but for now, I’ll have to respond to anym ore false accusations later- it’s hard enough trying to keep up with your convoluted twistings of what is actually presented- gonna have to get refreshed to combat the rabbit trails you present. Heaven forbid I post a mistake- because that would just be fodder for you and buddies to glom onto all the while ignoring the myriad other facts presented which are actually relevent to hte discussion at hand.

“After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.

I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.

For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident “expert”, Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.

I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.”

Narcissist. How many times can you state “I” in your paragraph.....geesh.

Your enormous ego won't be missed.

The ‘rebuttle” You posted has absolutely NOTHING to do with hte article I posted- Is AMS accurate, and IF so, how does htis confluict with your a priori belief? Obviously, AMS is supposed to be far more accurate, and as such, would show that the BONES (Human fossilized bones) are much much younger- your little cut and paste does absolutely NOTHING to discredit that fact. All it is is a cop out! The article link I posted is talking about the age of the bones, and how the new AMS method is far more accurate- showing that hte old method was indeed wonky, or that the assumptions and a priori beliefs of htose dating fossils over-rode the actual results which didn’t copnform to their long age hypothesis!
Don’t try to wiggle out of htis one- Are the bones young or not?

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]”

The skeletons were not very old. The racemization technique was experimental, and suggested a great antiquity. It was shown to be wrong.

When the AMS method of radiocarbon dating was developed it showed that the skeletons were not very old. Creationists made a mistake in using this as an example of the inaccuracy of the AMS dating technique--they didn't know what they were doing. Being anti-science they never bothered to study these things.

And likewise you have no idea what you are talking about. You get your information from crackpot creationist websites. I have that original article here in the office, and I have known the author professionally for over 20 years.

But you won't believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate.

People will judge you and your cause by the accuracy of what you post. You can't post nonsense and make up for it in volume, or in vehemence.

[[The skeletons were not very old. The racemization technique was experimental, and suggested a great antiquity. It was shown to be wrong.]]

They were the skeletons that Evos assured us were the oldest humans- Not very old? Change you mind much?

[[But you won’t believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate.]]

Lol- yup- it’s us who are ‘antiscience’- Pretty funny Coyoteman- especially after seeign you try to wiggle out of the AMS findings for several posts now

[[When the AMS method of radiocarbon dating was developed it showed that the skeletons were not very old. Creationists made a mistake in using this as an example of the inaccuracy of the AMS dating technique]]

Lol- Again- pay attention- The article wasn’t qurestioning hte AMS technique- it was however questioning the AAR that supposedly showed the OLDEST HUMAN BONES to be supposedly millions of years old- when hte new technique came along, it just FURTHER PROVED how baised and how full of innacurate assumptions dating ‘specialists’ really are when it comes ot dating fossils and bones, and how intellectually dishonest they really are-

You can try and turn this aroudn all you like, but your efforts are irelevent- the facts stand on their own merrit

[[People will judge you and your cause by the accuracy of what you post. You can’t post nonsense and make up for it in volume, or in vehemence.]]

Good- because what they will see is that you can’t even make a cogherrent arguyment based o nthe facts- Who cares if you know hte author personally? That doesn’t make his article any more relevent to what was being discussed hwere for the reasons I posted above- Shame you can’t see that- So yes, let’s let the peopel judge who is being more intellectually honest Coyoteman- I guaruntee you that you won’t be on the winners podium.

[[But you won’t believe a word I say because you are anti-science, and you are sure your crackpot creationist websites are accurate. ]]

You can squak about Creationists and ID folks being ‘anti-science’ all you like- but the FACTS show your simply trying to cover up the ugly fact that it’s the evolutionists who are entrenched in deceit and false assumptions and petty accusations- By the way- no comment on all the other evidences which show serious problems with hte other dating methods eh? All you can mount for a defense is a case where you misrepresent what was being said about AMS? Again, just so htere;’s no confusion on your part- The article was statign that AMS is more accurate, and shows the boens that were INTENTIONALLY presented as being the OLDEST KNOWN BONES of humans, claiming htem to be in the millions of years old, were actually young bones- thanks to AMS findings- ALSO- please note- you haven’t even bothered to touch the fact that CO2 isn’t in equilibrium yet- which would make hte bones even younger- hmmm- it just keeps gettign worse and worse for old age advocates and hteir a priori ‘science’-

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry’, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete. On the same grounds, human and dinosaur bones which have retained enough carbon to be tested by this precise method will be shown to be relatively young provided they are done in blind tests. That means samples used are not identified by where they came from.”

Again, just so htere;’s no confusion on your part- The article was statign that AMS is more accurate, and shows the boens that were INTENTIONALLY presented as being the OLDEST KNOWN BONES of humans, claiming htem to be in the millions of years old, were actually young bones- thanks to AMS findings-

Still wrong. The Taylor article summarizes the previous age estimates for these skeletons. They were between 15,000 and 70,000 years (page 137).

Your "oldest known bones" and the "millions of years old" are creationist misrepresentations. Lies actually.

And there is no confusion on my part. I an working from the original article and a pretty good knowledge of the radiocarbon dating method.

You are working from creationist websites out to destroy any scientific findings they find inconvenient to their religious beliefs. And you are buying the nonsense they are peddling uncritically. When will you realize that those sites are misrepresenting and distorting the facts, and outright lying to you?

I really don’t see why there can’t be one major knockout, drag-out thread for the crevo fight. I believe this was attempted before, and I’m sure it’s difficult, but it seems to me to make so much more sense than having every science or religion thread that’s even tangentially related to the topic devolve into the same old crap. Only a few people on each side are really fighting it, and with all due respect to all involved, I think a lot of this is about ego more than anything else.

And honestly, if I’m reading about the ‘discovery’ of a new supernova, I don’t want to read a religion vs. science debate about stellar evolution. And if I’m reading about someone’s experience of a miracle, I’d rather not read sarcastic remarks from atheists (which are already prohibited if the religious thread is labeled appropriately) or yet another debate over the existence of miracles. I’m far from alone in this desire.

Just create an almost NHB thread and be done with it. No one is changing minds here.

Velveeta I know; but what is this Ro-tel of which you speak so highly?

Does it go with Royal Crown Cola? /redneck mode>

Cheers!

Your point would be stronger if you were able to demonstrate similar errors/misunderstandings in his other examples.

Otherwise (by looking at only one, even tho' it lines up the best with *your* specialization), you open yourself up to the cheap shot counterargument of "Who's nitpicking NOW?!"

As it is, I'd rather post snarky comments than do any work. It's the holiday season, and I'm distracted...

Cheers!

I suppose I should feel some pride that he put me on his do-not-respond list, but really, all I feel is sadness for him, his approach, and his soulless philosophy.

I know how you feel and share your concern, Kevmo! Thank you for writing!

Your point would be stronger if you were able to demonstrate similar errors/misunderstandings in his other examples.

Otherwise (by looking at only one, even tho' it lines up the best with *your* specialization), you open yourself up to the cheap shot counterargument of "Who's nitpicking NOW?!"

With many creationists you can't do that. You have to select one item and try to get to the bottom of it. When they see that the facts are going against them they dredge up hundreds of semi-related and totally unrelated points, and try to argue them all at once. Can't be done. Its such a common creationist technique that its even been named after its master proponent, as the Gish Gallup.

No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.

At present the claim is that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because a series of "ancient" skeletons was analyzed by AMS radiocarbon dating and found to be young (under 11,000 years in age). That is supposed to be proof that the radiocarbon dating technique is flawed. This claim is rampant in creationist literature, and was in one of the links that Cottshop posted to me earlier today.

Now the facts of the matter are that those skeletons were claimed to be old (as old as 70,000 years) on the basis of amino acid racemization. That technique has proven not to be very accurate. So, as is usually the case in science, someone else challenged the claim and dated the skeletons with a newer and much more accurate dating method -- AMS radiocarbon dating. The skeletons were all found to be under 11,000 years old. That age fits with what we know of the areas from which those skeletons were excavated.

But when creationists saw the article clearing up the antiquity of these skeletons they jumped right in -- and got the facts exactly backwards! They claimed that the skeletons really were ancient, and that the AMS dating method was wrong. They did this in an effort to discredit radiocarbon dating, and because they didn't have a clue as to the actual science. Creation "science" as usual.

Now, when I post the information straightening out the creationist claim I get nothing but gibberish in return. Post after post making additional wild claims, both about the science of the matter and what the Taylor article says. This is particularly funny as early this afternoon I had the original article in my lap, while the rebuttals were being cut and pasted from creationist websites whose authors had most likely never seen the article--they just copied from other websites who in turn had copied from Walter T. Brown’s In the Beginning (1989), p. 95. He's the one who started this nonsense. (This is a good example of how creation "science" works.)

You suggest that I rebut multiple points contained in the link Cottshop provided earlier today. I would really like him or some other creationist to admit that this standard creationist talking point is in error before I move on to the next point. Otherwise why bother.

But that will never happen. I have yet to see a creationist criticize another creationist on issues of this nature. Rather, many will jump in and support him, although most will remain silent.

To summarize:

A standard creationist talking point concerning radiocarbon dating has been shown to be factually incorrect.
That talking point is all over the web, and in the creationist literature.
Cottshop will not admit that that point is incorrect in spite of the evidence I have provided.

Wrong Coyote- Look I really don't like backing you or anyone into a corner- but you seem hell bent on crouching htere- you wanna throw hte lie word around? Fine- let's play- let's go through your post line by line:

“Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer’ technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

[[The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these "ancient" skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?]]

LIE: It does no such thing- I've pointed htis out to you numerous times- but you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious

[[This claim is false due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with archaeology, amino acid racemization dating, and radiocarbon dating. And probably science in general.]]

LIE number 2: The bones WERE previously assumed to be hte oldest known bones and guess what? Yup, the AAR dating 'agreed' that they were, and scientists claimed for years that the bones were much much older than they actually are- as proven out by the AMS dating method which is much more accurate (although still plagued by the fact that CO2 isn't in equlibrium yet)

[[The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate,]]

LIE number 3: Creationists certainly would NOT assume hte first ages were accurate- it is ONLY the evos that beleived those ages- Creationists simply are pointing out that the new more accurate AMS REFUTES the assumptions & by gosh by golly shows that- Hey- just like we've been claimign for a logn time now, that dating methods such as AAR are INNACURATE!

[[and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrong–]]

LIE number 4: Your buddy can't even get his facts straight- and you cite him as your 'rebuttle'? Lol- Nope- they are claiming exactly what I stated above- learn to read more carefully!

[[The opposite is true:]]

No kidding? Golly- this statement perfectly aligns with what was just said in the link I posted- Hmmm- again, your buddy obviously has reading comprehension problems as well!

[[But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method]]

LIE number 5: Heck- we're batting a 1000 here- Again, your buddy really needs to work on his reading skills- the article simply mntioned the OBVIOUS fact that AAR dating was innacurate- that's all

[[Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts]]

Nope- but are you so desperate that you need to post blatant lies abotu what the article was talking about as your only rebuttles? Certainly you can do better?

[[Your "oldest known bones" and the "millions of years old" are creationist misrepresentations. Lies actually.]]

LIE number 6: Your side was the one presenting them as being oldest known bones fella!

[[You are working from creationist websites out to destroy any scientific findings they find inconvenient to their religious beliefs.]]

LIE number 7: We are doing NO such thing- We're simply pointing out the blatant LIES and misrepresentations that are taught in our schools as scientific truths when they are obviously NOT- If you can't handle that fact it just goes to show how insecure you are with your own hypothesis, and goes to show how broken your hypothseis really is IF you have to repeatedly keep attackign the character of those presentign the FACTS that refute your hypothesis

[[When will you realize that those sites are misrepresenting and distorting the facts, and outright lying to you?]]

Lol- that's really precious coming from someone that just presented a bunch of blatant lies- it must be nice being so naieve.