Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
Are you disputing BB's claim that the should is not a suitable subject for scientific investigation?
Oddly enough, you seem to be agreeing with me on this. Anything that has observable effects can be studied by science.
I rebutted an error commonly repeated by creationists which attempts to discredit radiocarbon dating.
I showed where the mistake came from, and where it was wrong by referring to the original report.
Cottshop, who cut and pasted the link in which that error occurred refused to acknowledge the error in spite of the clear cut evidence showing exactly where the error was--creationists got it exactly backwards!
So far, no creationist posting to this thread has acknowledged the error.
This is why debating creationists is a fool's errand. You can show them clear evidence and they will deny or misrepresent it even if it is unimportant to their particular beliefs--just because another creationist made the claim.
And some folks wonder why I point out that they are anti-science????
you: Sure they can. It's being done all the time. do you not read?
I do read. Quite a bit in fact.
If scientists are doing such things "all the time," they are probably biologists poaching on philosophical turf without a suitable method.... If they are doing such things, then that might have something to do with trying to flesh out their original, unshakeable presupposition that Darwinian macroevolution theory is valid, and thereby it must have a way to explain all these other "intangibles" lest it be found wanting.
Thus the original presupposition determines the conclusion in such a way that nonconforming evidence will be excluded from the get-go. But this is not something I would describe as a free and "open" inquiry.... It is biased, "closed" by the requirements of the original presupposition itself.
But the fact is, the theory has no explanation for man. And trying to smuggle human "spiritual concerns" (mainly of a social nature) via an unsuitable method and bastardized philosophy probably will not fix this problem. Darwinian materialists (and they are legion) absolutely deny soul, spirit, anyway.... For such folks, this is the beauty of Darwinian theory in the first place, that it denies the existence of such entities! So what's the point?
I honestly believe that at least some of these people simply refuse to allow any possible falsification of macroevolutionary theory: They have invested so much, and have so much at stake, in its being "true." This is how science is converted into doctrine, resting on faith and not on evidence.
Well, my two cents worth, FWIW.
[[I rebutted an error commonly repeated by creationists which attempts to discredit radiocarbon dating.]]
Lol- you did no such thing- ALL you did was confuse what was stated-
[[Cottshop, who cut and pasted the link in which that error occurred refused to acknowledge the error in spite of the clear cut evidence showing exactly where the error was—creationists got it exactly backwards!]]
Again- Wow- You still persist in beating yourself up over your silly mistake- I guess you really can’t see your error-
Lemme ask you Coyote- again- Did Radiocarbon dating refute the earlier AAR dates? Yes or no? You admitted earlier that it did- The whole article was to show that the earlier dates were wrong- Get it? It wasn’t a refutation of ALL dating metjhods- it just concentrated on the one method AAR which gave WRONG dates- Comprende? you accusation is a false accusation, and apparentl;y you are goign to persist in it-
[[And some folks wonder why I point out that they are anti-science????]]
no- some folks wonder why you cling so stubbornly to an obvious error (or perhaps intentional deceit) on your part!
That was really worth three posts. ;)
But gravity has no substance. It cannot be directly measured or observed. It can only be detected through its influence on objects within its field.
If that’s the case, why isn’t that categorized as the supernatural? It is no more detectable than God is and in no other way than God would be.
That is seen when ANY attempts to falsify the ToE are not accepted. The evidence that one uses is dismissed off hand without any consideration as *It's not science*.
Any objection is typically dismissed as religious in nature.
It commonly gets down to the mentality of *Sure, try to falsify the ToE using evidence, if you can find any. Yuk, yuk, yuk,...*
It's just presumed that none exists.
Death to self is never easy.
Whenever a Darwinian materialist (that’s you) argues radiocarbon dating (or any scientistic theories, for that matter)he is placing the cart before the horse.
Before he can argue scientistic theory, he must establish before all else exactly how it is that a soulless meat machine at the mercy of natural forces whose brain is mysteriously implanted with ‘thought’ by an impersonal intelligence hovering somewhere in the unseen realm knows anything? After all, materialism, like it’s flip-side pantheism, posits that man is nothing more than a tiny, insubstantial part of Nature, variously called Dialectical Matter (Marx’s divinized Matter Entity), Elan Vital, the Absolute, Overmind, the Force, etc.
Lacking soul, mind, conscience, reason, and free will, the meat machine is fully caused and determined by unseen forces of Nature. Hence it is merely a puppet dancing to the tune of unseen forces. Whatever words come out of its mouth were put there by Something Else. As there is no ‘you,’ it is this Something Else which speaks of radiocarbon testing.
Coyoteman is merely a body tagged with the name Coyoteman.
Excellent points in your replies #706, 707, and 708 metmom! Thank you so very much!
Yesterday you cut and pasted to me a lot of different links. I decided to check up on one of them, dealing with radiocarbon dating--a field with which I am familiar.
The article you linked to was titled "Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating." It included the following as an example of a problem with Carbon-14 dating:
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 implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.
This error originates from Brown's book In the Beginning. He got this wrong and many creationist websites have uncritically copied his error.
Here is how another creationist website puts it:
"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.CONCLUSION As with the other methods of non-historical dating, we find that radiocarbon dating is also highly inaccurate. Source
The fact is those skeletons really were young! The method by which they were originally considered to be ancient, amino acid racemization, was the one in error. Carbon-14 dating corrected that error.
These skeletal dates cannot honestly be used as an example of a problem with Carbon-14 dating. But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.
But you and other creationists on this thread refuse to acknowledge that it is an error.
Until you acknowledge this error there is no point in further discussion. No Gish gallup, no nonsense, no dozens of similar links. If you and other creationists can't acknowledge a mistake like this you demonstrate that you are impervious to fact and reason, and show that you simply aren't worth the effort.
Gravity differs from God in having consistent, measurable, quantifiable properties.
Any phenomenon having consistent measurable attributes is accessible to science.
OK- let’s do baby talk so that you understand you mistake- if possible-
FIRST- you didn’t even cite the right link- then you take a conclusions from ANOTHER site, and try to make it look like hte site that originally posted the link was the one that came to that conclusion? Wow coyote- you are REALLY BEING DECEITFUL!
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]
Tell me coyoteman- WHERE did it EVER state in that quote that the author who posted was saying ‘RadiocARBON dating is therefore unreliable’? Tell us all Coyotman- Because We’d REALLY like to know where the ORIGINAL site EVER said any such thing? The original site infact said ONLY that we should use caution when relying on the AAR dating method because it was shown to be wrong with the new AMS dating method which is more accurate-
Here- let me post what was ACTUALLY said on the site that we were discussing, and hwich you falsely claimed somethign that simply was not true about hte site:
“Radiocarbon dating is still a young science and even though there has been done a lot of research we must understand that each individual tends to accept those data which fit his expectations. What I am attempting to do now is point out some areas of cautions or possible pitfalls in relying too heavily on such dating methods.”
Again0- Tell us how that translates into you your claim that ‘christians are stating that because eleven human skeletons were dated with AMS method, subsequently showing that the previous AAR method was wrong, that therefore Radiometric dating is wrong?
Tell us Coyoteman where christians EVER make hte claim that bbecause 1 single incident nullifies the authenticity of Radiometric dating?
The fact is Coyoteman- that htere are NUMEROUS reasons why Radiometric dating is flat out wrong- Here- here’s the correct link again- incase peopel might have been misled by your deceitful cover-up attempt and WRONG link!!
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Really Coyoteman- quit making crap up as you go along- it’s really hurting your reputation!
For htose who might be following htis- Here is Coyoteman’s claim “The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.”
Well is it wrong Coyoteman? Was hte mthod used to date htem wrong or not? We’re waiting!- oh wait- here’s a quote from you a little further down “The fact is those skeletons really were young! The method by which they were originally considered to be ancient, amino acid racemization, was the one in error.”
Where did He EVER sate that because AAR method was wrong that Radiocarbon dating therefore was wrong? Where Coyoteman? You simply made up that false claim, and now are trying to point to another website in order to cover up your mistake, and you are ALSO tryign to Deceitfully and falsely claim thatthe one you pointed to is inferring that because that one series of tests was done, that they now claim it refutes Radiocarbon dating- You are lying to everyone here Coyoteman, and you know it!!
[[But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.]]
It is? Where? Again, you’re lying! The ONLY implication was that AAR was wrong in that particular case! The REST of his article mentions why Radiocarbon dating shouldn’t be relied on as accurate is because we are not in equilibrium! I guess you missed that hwole part eh? Or is it simply that you don’t have any answers to that scientifically supported claim, and you therefore have to make up lies about those who post those problems with radiometric/radiocarbon dating methods?
Did you have you ‘shame gland’ surgically removed Coyote?
FIRST- you didn’t even cite the right link!!- then you take a conclusions from ANOTHER site, and try to make it look like hte site that originally posted the link was the one that came to that conclusion? Wow coyote- you are REALLY BEING DECEITFUL!
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]
Tell me coyoteman- WHERE did it EVER state in that quote that the author who posted was saying ‘RadiocARBON dating is therefore unreliable’? Tell us all Coyotman- Because We’d REALLY like to know where the ORIGINAL site EVER said any such thing? The original site infact said ONLY that we should use caution when relying on the AAR dating method because it was shown to be wrong with the new AMS dating method which is more accurate-
Here- let me post what was ACTUALLY said on the site that we were discussing, and hwich you falsely claimed somethign that simply was not true about hte site:
“Radiocarbon dating is still a young science and even though there has been done a lot of research we must understand that each individual tends to accept those data which fit his expectations. What I am attempting to do now is point out some areas of cautions or possible pitfalls in relying too heavily on such dating methods.”
Again0- Tell us how that translates into you your claim that ‘christians are stating that because eleven human skeletons were dated with AMS method, subsequently showing that the previous AAR method was wrong, that therefore Radiometric dating is wrong?
Tell us Coyoteman where christians EVER make hte claim that bbecause 1 single incident nullifies the authenticity of Radiometric dating?
The fact is Coyoteman- that htere are NUMEROUS reasons why Radiometric dating is flat out wrong- Here- here’s the correct link again- incase peopel might have been misled by your deceitful cover-up attempt and WRONG link!!
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Really Coyoteman- quit making crap up as you go along- it’s really hurting your reputation!
For htose who might be following htis- Here is Coyoteman’s claim “The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.”
Well is it wrong Coyoteman? Was hte mthod used to date htem wrong or not? We’re waiting!- oh wait- here’s a quote from you a little further down “The fact is those skeletons really were young! The method by which they were originally considered to be ancient, amino acid racemization, was the one in error.”
Where did He EVER sate that because AAR method was wrong that Radiocarbon dating therefore was wrong? Where Coyoteman? You simply made up that false claim, and now are trying to point to another website in order to cover up your mistake, and you are ALSO tryign to Deceitfully and falsely claim thatthe one you pointed to is inferring that because that one series of tests was done, that they now claim it refutes Radiocarbon dating- You are lying to everyone here Coyoteman, and you know it!!
[[But this mistake is still on many creationist websites, including the one you linked me to yesterday.]]
It is? Where? Again, you’re lying! The ONLY implication was that AAR was wrong in that particular case! The REST of his article mentions why Radiocarbon dating shouldn’t be relied on as accurate is because we are not in equilibrium! I guess you missed that hwole part eh? Or is it simply that you don’t have any answers to that scientifically supported claim, and you therefore have to make up lies about those who post those problems with radiometric/radiocarbon dating methods?
Did you have you ‘shame gland’ surgically removed Coyote?
Just one?
(I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes.)
You replied: The implication is that Carbon-14 dating is wrong because it dated these ancient skeletons as being young.
I swear- it's the same stinking thing with people like you time and time again- when something comes up which presents a slew of problems with somethign you support- you simply make crap up to suit your bias!
EVEN IF you are now goign to point to a totally different site, and going to try to make the same lame accusation against 'Christians', you are STILL making a FALSE CLAIM! There was a slew of reasons on that particular site why Radiocarbon dating has serious problems associated with it- BUT, instead, you simply pull one irrelevent quote out of the slerw of problems, and try to make it look as though the person was ONLY using that one issue to show problems with Radiocarbon dating, and that is just flat out deceitful!
So here- here are the rest of hte reasons why He said Radiocarbon dating was problem ridden:
SEVENTEEN RADIODATING PROBLEMS Here is a brief discussion of some of the serious hurdles to accuracy in radiocarbon dating:
(1) TYPE OF CARBONUncertainties regarding just what type of carbon is in a given sample causes significant errors in dating....
(2) VARIATIONS WITHIN SAMPLESThen there is the problem of variations within each of the samples.
13) LOSS OF C-14Rainfall, below-ground moisture, lakes, and oceans, will affect samples and cause a loss of C-14, and thus ruin its radiation clock.
(4) LESSON FROM JARMOJarmo was an ancient village that was inhabited for not over 500 years.
(5) CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBONIn addition, there is the problem of what carbonic and atmospheric conditions were like in earlier times.
(6) SUNSPOT EFFECT ON C-14 PRODUCTIONSunspot production seriously affects our planet in a number of ways, one of these is radiocarbon production in the atmosphere.
(7) RADIOCARBON DATE SURVEYA major survey of 15,000 dates obtained by carbon 14 dating revealed that, in spite of its errors, radiocarbon dating still yields dates that are millions and even billions of years younger than those obtained by other radiodating techniques (uranium, thorium, potassium, etc.):
(8) CHANGE IN NEUTRINO RADIATIONA change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere in earlier times would also affect radiocarbon levels.
(9) RECENT DATES ARE MOST ACCURATEIt is rather well known that carbon 14 dates, going back about 2,600 years, tend to be the most accurate. But, prior to about 600 B.C., the dates given by radiocarbon analysis begin lengthening out excessively.
(10) IF WARMER AND MORE WATER VAPORIf the earth was either warmer at an earlier time, or had more water in the atmosphere (both of which we believe happened before and during the Flood), then the C-14 clocks would register long ages of time prior to about 2000 B.C.
(11) COSMIC RAYSThe amount of cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial.
(12) MAGNETIC FIELDThe greater the magnetic field of the earth, the smaller the amounts of cosmic rays that will strike our world, and it is cosmic radiation into our atmosphere that changes C-12 into C-14.
(13) MOISTURE CONDITIONSAtmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also be significant. Changes in ground moisture, even temporary ones would have an even greater impact.
(14) DRAMATIC CHANGES AFTER FLOOD For some time after the Flood there were changes in the atmosphere (a loss of water from the vapor canopy), changes in climate (due to worldwide warmth changing to cooler conditions), and changes due to volcanism and glaciation.
(15) EVEN MODERN SPECIMENS ARE INACCURATEBut it is a surprising fact that even specimens from recent centuries show serious problems.
(16) CARBON INVENTORYDue to drastic changes at the time of that immense catastrophe, the Flood, there is reason to believe that dramatic changes were occurring at that time in the carbon 14 content of the atmosphere.
(17) FOUR RADIOCARBON SAMPLESThere should be evidence of this dramatic changeover in C-14 rates in specimens examined. And so we find it. Here are four interesting radiocarbon samples:
Again- here is hte link for htose that want to further investigate the serious problems with Radiometric and radiocarbon dating, and for those that want their FACTS WITHOUT dishonest commentary, and false misrepresentations and accusations peppering the comments! :
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm
He goes on to list many many many more problems with radiometric and radiocarbon dating methods, and it is deceitful and intellectually DISHONEST of you and the feller you quoted from to try to make it out like he or anyone else was trying to make it look like Radiocarbon dating was wrong simply based on the fact that one single incident showed that previous AAR dating was ALSO wrong!
Again- when hte goign gets tough for you guys, apparently, you must reach into the gutter of deceit and misrepresentation in order to 'defend' your views? And apaprently, you can't simply try to refute the evidnences presented in a rational, intellectually honest, and civil manner, and must throw in copious amounts of petty snide remarks abotu htose you dissagree with? It's impossible havign a civil discussion with someone liek yourself, because you can't stick to hte FACTS, you can't refrain from vitriolic, petty attacks, and you can't seem to mount intellectually honest rebuttles! I told you I didn't want to keep hammering you on this, but you insist on making yourself look silly, so- whatever- lay in the bed you've made for yourself.
Just one?
(I'm beginning to feel like Diogenes.)]]
It's obvious you're not goign to be honest enough to admit you're tryign to make crap up to suit your bias against Christians! The articles stand just fine on their own- I've pointed out your intellectually dishonest accusations, and people can judge for themselves- But do please keep posting, your attempt ot wiggle out is speaking volumes
Personal attacks with frequent atrocious misspellings. Better get used to that!
Wohooo- Coyoteman has a little hceerleader who ALSO ignores hte FACTS- aint htat just precious? Now run along kid- We aren’t interested in hearing from the peanut gallery
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.