[[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?!”]]
What? Since hwne is hte truth ‘nitpicking’ or claiming the other side is ‘nitpicking’?
[[Your point would be stronger if you were able to demonstrate similar errors/misunderstandings in his other examples.]]
‘other misunderstandings’? please do enlighten me where either I or the fella that wrote the article are ‘mistaken’ or in ‘error’? So far, all we’re been handed is some cock-n-bull story that blatantly misrepresents the actual FACTS abotu what was wrote.
What? Since hwne is hte truth ‘nitpicking’ or claiming the other side is ‘nitpicking’?
In an earlier post, somewhere upthread, Coyote complained that Creationists tended to cherry-pick individual points to complain about, and then to use those to attack evolutionary theory as a whole. He called this "nitpicking".
Since his earlier post only went into detail about ONE of your points (the one closest to his own field of study), a casual observer might then accuse him of "nitpicking" and then by extension, hypocrisy.
‘other misunderstandings’? please do enlighten me where either I or the fella that wrote the article are ‘mistaken’ or in ‘error’? So far, all we’re been handed is some cock-n-bull story that blatantly misrepresents the actual FACTS abotu what was wrote.
I'm too lazy to review the thread and all of your posts in detail.
But--the impression left with me is that on the matter of the radiocarbon dating of the skeletons, the following happened:
1) Some skeletons were discovered and tentatively assigned an approximate date based on the kinetics of amino acid racemization. (I didn't see either a rough age estimate, nor error bars on said estimate. Nor did I see any independent tests as to the age, given contemporaneously with the racemization dating.)
2) Some form of radiometric dating was applied, which gave an age incommensurate with the racemization dating.
3) You and Coyote offered different interpretations of what happened -- Coyote seemed to say that creationists had accepted the racemization date as more accurate, and used it to attack both the radiometric dates of those specimens, and (by extension) the relative efficacy and accuracy of radiometric methods in general. (He suggested in one of his posts that some other methods lent credence to the radiometric dates for those fossils). You appeared to say "no, that's not what the creationists did: in fact, they relied on the evolutionists' claims of the racemization dates, and the creationists relied on the radiometric dating for an accurate dating. And BTW, the quote you gave originally called the skeletons "the oldest in North America" and we *know* that's not true. So these anecdotal inaccuracies show the evolutionists tend to blow smoke".
Is that a roughly accurate synopsis of the argument so far? Did I leave anything important out from what either one of you had said?
Full Disclosure: signing off for the night now, I have some work-related programming to pursue and then household chores. (And Monday Night Football!!)
Cheers!