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!
[[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.]]
Sorry- I misunderstood what you were infering.
[[3) You and Coyote offered different interpretations of what happened]]
You are correct up to this point- I offered the truth abotu what was said- Coyoteman posted some convoluted false claims about what was said and why.
[[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.]]
Correct- somewhat- We aren’t relying on any of the dates- however, the fact that carbon was found in hte bones in amounts that are too great to be as old as once claimed shows that the earlier dating methods which were accepted without question based on Evo’s a priori beliefs abotu how old thiongs ‘should be’ (apparently to fit hte evidneces to the assumptions). We also rely on the fact that CO2 isn’t in equilibrium, and therefore, all the tests over 6000-10000 or so years that rely on carbon (remember, evos claim carbon can date things to over 15-30000, and hte non equilibrium would take at least 300000 years to gain equilibrium), simply are not accurate.
The fact is that these early bones were taught as scientific evidence for how old man was, and where he ‘might have evolved from’ and hte fact is that the dating methods used ot date them were just plain wrong- but you won’t find any retractions in the science books that our kids have to slosh htrough. Now, the evos are tryign to weasel out of this perdicament by claiming that they apparently knew all along they weren’t that old, because apparently they’ve tested the surrounding earth they were extracted from (When hte reality of hte situation is that they no doubt dated those surroundings before and came to hte long age dates then)
[[ So these anecdotal inaccuracies show the evolutionists tend to blow smoke”.]]
Ypu- see previous response- only hte ‘anectodotal innacuracies’ are more like objectively realized innacuracies.