This German scholar has dragged out a huge problem. They are now going to have step back and redate every piece of history that he ever touched. This process...could take well over five years. And the cost...just a guess...but I'd be figuring well over $10 million.

And the million dollar question...who else has been doing this? And could the environmentalists with climate models be in the same group?

"If it is not the Word of God then I believe we do not have it. "

Be careful about rabid bats. They are not the same as birds.

So you just posted without looking to see if the material was meritorious? I guess you are not a liar-just naive.

You probably got the quotes from the talkorigins site that debunks them. It is called the quote mine project, I believe.

You know, posting in a red font doesn't make your stuff any more credible... Especially since a Freeper (Dimensio) ALREADY GAVE YOU LINKS SHOWING WHY YOUR MATERIAL CONSISTED OF LIES BY CREATIONISTS, and then for some baffling reason you decided all you needed to do was ignore the evidence that your post consisted of lies, and then REPOST THE LIES in your newer post.

WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE?

Please respond. I'd *really* like to know why such "don't confuse me with the facts, I'm going to just repeat the same false material again (and again and again)" behavior is so common among creationists. So please explain that to me, because I just don't get it. How do you "justify" such bizarre, dishonest behavior? Why do you not care that you are bearing false witness? Have you no shame at all?

And now, to address the one "point" (actually, falsehood) you made (then repeated) which has not already been debunked by other Freepers:

The geologic Column came many years BEFORE radiometric dating was conceived.

Correct -- and then radiometric dating confirmed what had already been understood about the geologic column based on other earlier lines of evidence.

Dates were initially established based on NOTHING.

ROFL!!! Look, just because *you're* not familiar with any of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's typical creationist "thinking", though -- "my lack of knowledge means it doesn't exist".

Radiometric dating aside, the geologic column is based upon the notion that it took alot of time to form the layers.

...and that "notion" was based on many independently confirming lines of evidence.

Oddly enough, layer formation has not been observed at all over the years,

ROFL!

You've said a lot of really ignorant things before, Race, but this one may well take the cake.

So "layer formation has not been observed at all over the years", eh? Then what the hell is, say, this?

Oh, lookee -- that's the Mississippi River delta, depositing layers of sediment as we speak, and LOTS of it.

There's also a really big layer of volcanic ash for hundreds of square miles around Mount St. Helen's that was "observed" being laid down -- it was in all the newspapers, so how are you completely unaware of it?

Then there are the thousands of studies of annual layer ("varve") depositions in lake, sea, and ocean beds which you also seem entirely unaware of. For example:

In Lammi, the classic site of Lovojärvi was visited where much of the early work in the 1970 's was undertaken. In situ freezing of the sediment was demonstrated and new varves accumulated during the past two decades were recognized. Diatoms are important components of the varves in Lovojärvi as is the case in many kettle hole lakes in esker environments.
-- From http://gaia.gi.ee/~veski/Varve%2099%20in%20PAGES.html

Oh look -- here are new layers added to the floor of Bråviken Bay in the last couple of years:

For pete's sake, do a Google on "sedimentation" for zillions of examples. Or for "erosion" for that matter -- hasn't it occurred to you that the great volumes of dirt/sand/etc. which are eroded from many regions of the Earth have to end up *somewhere* else and build up new layers there? Like these huge masses of sand being relocated by windstorms:

except when you put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up. Strange thing about that test though, is that it only takes a matter of minutes for layers to form. Science can explain this phonomena too. It has to do with the particles themselves, as they sort out by density etc (they even teach this to 4th graders).

Um, yeah, so?

Oh, wait -- don't tell me -- you're going to repeat the creationist nonsense about the mythical "hydrologic sorting" which they claim "explains" how all the various geological layers are the result of stuff settling out during/after Noah's Flood, right?

Typical creationist twaddle, which sounds good "to 4th graders" maybe (and those who are as simplistic as 4th graders), but which comes crashing down the moment you actually go out into the real world (remember *that* place?) and *look*. As it turns out, the geologic column is NOTHING LIKE the kind of layering you'd get if you "put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up" on a global scale.

For just one example, here are the settling times for variously-sized particles of rock:

In "hydrologic sorting", you'd get the biggest chunks settling to the bottom first, then the slightly smaller chunks, etc. etc. until finally you got the very finest particles settling into a fine clay on the very top layer. Well guess what, Race? That's not at all you see in the geologic column. Nice try, though. Worse yet, the settling times for particles small enough to form layers of clay are *extremely* slow. At 0.81x10^-4 cm/s, the fine particles which make up even a *coarse* clay take roughly 3.7x10⁸ seconds to settle out of just a thousand feet of water (and only if the water is *still* - far long if the water is moving in any way). That's over TEN YEARS. So how exactly does this "hydrologic sorting" explain how layers of shale (lithified clays) were (allegedly) formed BETWEEN layers of other kinds of sediments with larger particle sizes during the only one year the Flood supposedly took place?

Oh wait, but it gets worse: In various places in the geologic column, there are layers of clay both ABOVE and BELOW layers of windblown sand. Please -- explain how *that* happens when you "put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up" on a global scale.

And, of course, in order to "explain" the order of fossils in the geologic column, creationists quite simply have to LIE to make that one "work out". (One tiny example: if it's all about layers made by "settling out" after "shaken and stirred" by the Flood, how on Earth did the modern pollen grains end up only in the *top* of the geologic column, and ancient pollen grains end up only in the *bottom*, despite their very similar sizes? Etc. etc. etc. etc.

If you want to actually *learn* about the geologic column, instead of spreading more of the truckloads of lies the creationist sources tell about it, this: The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood . You might be interested to know that the author used to be a young-earth creationist with a college degree from a creationist university, until he got a job as a geologist and actually got a chance to LOOK at the geologic column in the real world, and learned just how much the reality clashed with what the creationist had "taught" him.

Are you intellectually honest enough to do the same? Or do you just want to keep believing and repeating the same old falsehoods, unsullied by any knowledge of the reality?

CARBON 14 IS NOT USED TO DATE FOSSILS!

It only goes back 50000 years. I have repeatedly told you this. So have others. If you repeat this claim one more time, you will be a self-admitted liar.

typo life to light

I know it, dimensio is now on the ignore list, he has no rebuttal,

This appears to be another "falsehood" by you, Race. He most certainly *does* "have rebuttal" for you, as in his post #129. He gave you *specific* rebuttals for the nonsense you posted. Why do you now pretend that he did not?

only accusations,

Not *only* accusations, Race. He accused you of posting falsehoods, and then *documented* why they are falsehoods.

As another poster here recently said, if the shoe fits, wear it.

and then when articles are posted, he doesnt address the article, he just acts like a liberal and calls the person who posted the article a lie.

See above. Why are you misrepresenting his posts?

Since when does a cobbler know anything about biology?

Repeating the same quote mines and debunked nonsense is not debate. It is fraud.

*VERY* well said. It bears repeating.

The environmentalist models are less reliable than the fraud perpetrated here.

Michael Crichton gave a lecture on global warming. He found that the graphs from the models that show a "hockey stick" pattern of warming in the last 100 years would show the same pattern even if random numbers were inserted. LOL

[Thunderous applause!]

JFK_Lib - He may have lied and faked his way on invented data, but hey, at least he wasnt a Creationist.

wyatearp - Are you sure about that? He misidentified modern humans as Neandertals. That's classic creationist.

JFK_Lib - He cant be a creationist and have gotten away with it for so long.

Carbon dating is flawed.

No it isn't. It has been tested literally millions of times, including against countless materials of known age, and found to be extremely reliable. The creationists will "forget" to mention that though, and will only keep bringing up the special cases where it produces results which seem unusual (but are actually well understood -- although the creationists won't tell you that).

Wood freshly cut out of living trees has been carbon dated at 10,000 years,

BECAUSE, Race, that tree grew in a busy airport, and got a significant amount of its CO2 from the nearly constant exhaust of jets which were burning ANCIENT hydrocarbons.

Now, please explain how many actual paleontological specimens grew near a constant source of burning fossil fuels all th eir lives?

Your source sort of "forgot" to mention this so that it could try to cast doubt on ALL radiocarbon dating, didn't it? Lying by omission in order to leave a misleading impression is still lying.

and living mollusks (such as snails) dated at 2,300 years.

...for reasons which are perfectly well understood -- except to creationists. Those snails incorporated ancient limestone minerals into their shells, so of course the radiocarbon dating CORRECTLY indicated that they were a mix of "new" and "old" carbon. This is why molluscs and several kinds of marine animals are known not to be appropriate for carbon-dating, except in specific cases. The vast majority of creatures don't actually ingest limestone, however, and thus this is not a problem in most cases.

Carbon dating falsely assumes a constant rate of decay.

No, it CORRECTLY assumes a constant rate of decay, because the decay rate of 14C has been verified as constant, countless times over. If you know of any exception, Race, now would be the time to post it and win your Nobel Prize, especially since the dynamics of nuclear decay (and thus the actual decay rates) are derivable from first principles using quantum calculations).

excerpted: THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING

Yawn -- more of the same dishonest twaddle.

If the creationists have such a good case, why do they have to keep lying about it?

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

ANOTHER NICE CREATIONIST LIE!

Uranium-238 and Iron-57, you'll note, are NOT CARBON-14.

The FUNNIEST thing here is that Iron-57 is a STABLE isotope. IT DOES NOT DECAY, and contrary to the twaddle above, IS NOT RADIOACTIVE. This creationist garbage is talking NONSENSE. The source of this ridiculous claim has been traced to creationist "scientist" Harold Slusher (member of ICR) who has misunderstood a report of variable rates of GAMMA decay in I-57 (having to do with chemical excitation) for variable NUCLEAR decay. Quite simply, the man's an idiot. He's also a "creation scientist". But then I repeat myself.

As for U-238, I haven't tracked down that specific claim to see if it's at all true or not (knowing the creationists, probably "not"), but you can read this page to learn about how a few select (i.e. special case) isotopes *can* have their nuclear decay rates affected slightly by conditions, but the largest amount of change is a whopping 0.8%... And Carbon-14 is NOT one of those isotopes subject to such minor variations. And even if it were, a 0.8% variation in decay rate would introduce no more than a +/- 1% uncertainty into radiometric dates -- note how the creationists try to imply that this would somehow completely undermine carbon-14 dating, which it certainly would not.

A lie is a lie is a lie...

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous.

...and gosh, real scientists (unlike the ones the creationists use) have been well aware of this for over half a century, and have spent a lot of time DETERMINING what the carbon-14 production rate has ACTUALLY BEEN over the past 50,000 years. The creationists sort of "forget" to mention that, don't they?

There are many, many samples of known age (e.g. tree rings, arctic ice layers, lake bottom layers, etc.) which can be used to multiply and independently determine how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere in any given year, and thus be used to calibrate Carbon-14 dating methods.

For a quick article on one such study, see http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html

A much more technical treatment: Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production

Such studies produce calibration results such as the following:

If the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere had been exactly constant throughout time (and no one expects that it has been), then the results would fall on the straight diagonal line. Instead, the wiggly line indicates how much the actual amount of C-14 in the atmosphere deviated from the "base" amount, and from this we can know how much C-14 was actually present in any given year in the past 50,000 years.

Note that the above graph includes C-14 data from *two* completely independent sources (Lake Suigetsu varves, and ocean corals), and yet the results overlap beautifully, confirming each other. There is similar match from C-14 studies based on tree-ring data and other sources.

From this, we can build a Carbon-14 dating calibration or "correction" curve which can be used to confidently produce an accurate date from a given Carbon-14 measurement. These calibration curves look like this:

There are many databases available which are used to compile massive amounts of data to ensure the proper calibration of carbon-dating. For just one example, Marine Reservoir Correction Database.

Other methods are used to cross-check and calibrate other dating methods to ensure accuracy.

But again, the creationists sort of "forget" to mention that.

Race, are you ever surprised by how often your creationist sources lie to you? And are you ever embarassed at having been gullible enough to believe them, and for repeating their falsehoods, when the obvious flaws in their horse manure are obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge of science?

And can we encourage you to stop posting so much of this manure, so that we can all spend our time doing something more productive than correcting these floods of falsehoods?

[Another round of thunderous applause!]

TalkOrigins sources its references so that anyone can check its findings. ICR and AIG do not. TO does not take findings out of context the way ICR and AIG do. Methinks I'd go with TO over the latter two any day of the week.

He may have lied and faked his way on invented data, but hey, at least he wasn't a Creationist.

That's so correct. The tone and vitriolic of the responses would be just as silly and goofy as these. Not!!!

It would be an entirely different thread.

Just add one more incident were fraud and evolution theory are bedfellows

tiny list of fraudulent finds

The list may be small, but it's what this "tiny" list claimed to be true, turned the world upside down and continued to perpetuate an agenda.

Heck, the evolutionist are getting as bad as the early church selling trinkets to the faithful to believe

...who else has been doing this? And could the environmentalists with climate models be in the same group?

Impossible. Those scientists aren't pushing an agenda.

< / snickering >

Vioxx was just determined to be able to be sold. The whole class of drugs had more positive effect than negative. The whole hearing was on CSPAN. It turns out, the publicity on the negative effects was mostly from trial lawyers. The drugs cure pain in people who otherwise would be house bound. Patients and their doctors pleaded to keep the drugs, saying quality of life was more important to them than a slight upward risk of heart attack, that could be managed now that the problem was understood. It turns out that the people at risk of heart attack were the people who already were more at risk.

Ummm, Shubi.
I already *knew* that.
I was talking about the attitude of the proverbial "man on the street".

Cheers!

Full Disclosure: Go Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson&Johnson!

"And can we encourage you to stop posting so much of this manure, so that we can all spend our time doing something more productive than correcting these floods of falsehoods?"

I don't think that is in the cards. The whole idea is to be more persistent than scientists and hope they get tired and go away. It is much easier to paste the same lies than to do any actual reading or learning.