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:
“No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.”
Who is this ‘we’?
That’s the problem I have with these posts.
This site as a whole isn’t going to get to the bottom of anything. Everyone is talking to each other with the full knowledge that no one is going to move an inch. Sure, maybe you’ll say everything you feel like saying and then say something like, “Oh, I’m tired of speaking with idiots,” but then the very same part of the debate will come up in a future thread and it’ll start all over again.
If creating one large crevo thread is impractical (and perhaps it is given the egos involved), then the subject should be handled in a manner similar to other ultra-sensitive topics.
I remember kevmo suggesting something like this before. His idea of treating science like religion on this forum is a smart one, but for the wrong reasons. Science is not a religion (and calling it ‘scientism’ was a rather rude way to put it), but it is something that relies on a method that is different from that of religion. To me, it makes sense to enforce clear boundaries on these threads for precisely this reason. Discuss science in science threads, religion in religion threads, and then have a thread (or several, if necessary) to debate issues like crevo, morality vs. scientific experimentation, etc. There is no reason why there can’t be threads for creationists to discuss their beliefs on creation without being criticized by nonbelievers and threads for scientists/enthusiasts to discuss theories without creationists disputing every point.
This, of course, would mean people on all sides of the issue respecting boundaries, suppressing the urge to make some snarky comment on a thread where it doesn’t belong, and being polite to each other . Would egos allow that? I have my doubts. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I realize variations of this have been tried before in the site’s history, but things are getting really, really bad with this current mixture, and there has got to be a solution.
[[No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.]]
We aint gonna get there with you denying the FACT that what you posted was a bunch of rubbish and lies
[[That is supposed to be proof that the radiocarbon dating technique is flawed.]]
Correct- What the article shows is that radiometric dating is wrong by hte fact that we were supposed to be in equilibrium in order for radiometric dating to be accurate, but subsequent tests prove that it certainly is not, and hterefore, radiometric dating is relying on ASSUMPTIONS that have been proven wrong- it ALSO shows that the more accurate AMS dating method shows previous dating methods were WRONG
[[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.]]
Aha! Now we’re seeing a confession
[[But when creationists saw the article clearing up the antiquity of these skeletons they jumped right in — and got the facts exactly backwards!]]
You NEED reading comprehension classes I’m afraid- It’s been explained to you time and time gain- but evidnetly you can’t see your error
[[They claimed that the skeletons really were ancient, and that the AMS dating method was wrong.]]
Nope- WRONG! Sigh- one more time- What was claiemd was that the AAR method was wrong- NOT the AMS method- Read carefully- then mount a proper fact filled response, will ya?
[[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.]]
Stop- will ya? Your petty accusations are getting quite tiring- Argue the facts- leave the crap out eh? Let’s see if you’re capable of doing so!
[[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.]]
When I’m in error I’ll gladly do so- but hte FACT is that you sir are the one in error- you haven’t honestly addressed any of hte points- prefering instead to confound hte issue by stating FALSE claims about what was written in the article linked to!
[[Cottshop will not admit that that point is incorrect in spite of the evidence I have provided.]]
You have provided no such hting! All you provided was a BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION of what the article states!
[[A standard creationist talking point concerning radiocarbon dating has been shown to be factually incorrect.]]
wow! You just don’t get it do you? It WAS shown to be factually wrong- and no amount of ad hominems will make it any better.