Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank
PDF file.
I respectfully ask that you read the linked agreement so that you will know what the willing parties expect of one another and their dealings with others. Some of you have signed the agreement. But signing the agreement does not automatically make one a complying poster. A party who has signed the agreement can be challenged as non-compliant with cause and evidence.
If we the complying posters observe a poster causing a problem on a thread, we are obligated under the agreement to first politely ask that the poster come into compliance using words such as the following:
If the conduct continues, any of the otherwise complying posters may engage the non-complying posting with harsh language otherwise prohibited by the agreement. However, there is never any obligation on a complying poster at any time to refrain from pressing abuse on a non-complying poster.
TerrierGal, you just signed the agreement this evening so I suggest to all complying posters that everything that happened here today before you signed be laid aside and mentioned no more.
Elsie, the above example is your polite request that you join us in the agreement or that you not provoke flame wars.
f.Christian, since you have signed the agreement, I am now notifying you that your post 100 has been posted previously and is inflammatory per se and thus in violation of our agreement under the Sunset Clause not to bring forward issues that predate the effective date (August 9th 2003), the Language Clause not to use belittling words and the Economy Clause not to repeat posts excessively. We will appreciate your not posting that particular item in the future.
fight the good fight...welcome to the jungle!
We cannot try to put his actions into the context of our abilities and understanding.
This is evidently a paper using the data from multiple sources and analyzing the whole.
Here is an example cited from the paper.
Most of their foraminifera were from a Pleistocene core from the tropical Atlantic off the northwest coast of Africa dated at 455,000 years. The foraminifera from this core showed a range of 14C values from 0.16 to 0.4 pmc with an average, taken over 115 separate measurements, of 0.23 pmc. A benthic species of foraminifera from another core, chosen because of its thick shell and smooth surface in the hope its ‘contamination’ would be lower, actually had a higher average 14C level of 0.58 pmc!
The authors then performed a number of experiments involving more aggressive pre-treatment of the samples to attempt to remove contamination. These included progressive stepwise acid hydrolization of the carbonate samples to CO2 gas and 14C measurement of each of four separate gas fractions. They found a detectable amount of surface contamination was present in the first fraction collected, but it was not large enough to make the result from the final gas fraction significantly different from the average value. They also leached samples in hydrochloric acid for two hours and cracked open the foraminifera shells to remove secondary carbonate from inside, but these procedures did not significantly alter the measured 14C values.
The authors summarize their findings in the abstract of their paper as follows, “The results…show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of contamination.” In their conclusion they state, “The apparent ages of biogenic samples seem species related and can be reproduced measuring different individuals for larger shells or even different sediment cores for foraminifera. Although tests showed some surface contamination, it was not possible to reach lower 14C levels through cleaning, indicating the contamination to be intrinsic to the sample.” They continue, “So far, no theory explaining the results has survived all the tests. No connection between surface structure and apparent ages could be established.”
The measurements reported in this paper obviously represent serious anomalies relative to what should be expected in the uniformitarian framework. There is a clear conflict between the measured levels of 14C in these samples and the dates assigned to the geological setting by other radioisotope methods. The measured 14C levels, however, are far above instrument threshold and also appear to be far above contamination levels arising from sample processing. Moreover, the huge difference in 14C levels among species co-existing in the same physical sample violates the assumption that organisms living together in the same environment should share a common 14C/C ratio. The position the authors take in the face of these conflicts is that this 14C, which should not be present according to their framework, represents ‘contamination’ for which they currently have no explanation.
Contamination by excess 14C should make the item appear to be younger that it really is. If it is not contamination then it is younger than whatever method considers it older.
Did you ever hear of the Scientific Method? Repeatable results? Ring a bell? How many ships sailed off the edge of the flat Earth? Was it repeated? Did anyone at the time use the Scientific Method to finding the actual edge? No. If they had, they would have discovered the Americas and PROVEN the Earth was not flat.
I prefer to believe in the general progression of trigonometry, Cepheid variable stars, Type 1a supernovas to determine the vast distances in space. Since these forms a measurements overlap, you will have to prove to me that basic trigonometry is incorrect. Heck, you can even ignore Type 1a supernova's and we can still tell local galaxies are several million light years away. Like I said before, God would have to be tricking us by placing light from these distant galaxies 6K light years away at the creation of the 6K old universe in order for the light to be hitting us now.
Hence the absolute necessity of peer review, helps keep 'em honest.
Ever hear of Vendian or Ediacarian? Pre-cambrian metazoa.
See, for example, Vendian ecosystems
...which contained...
My humble apologies - I was unaware that English was not your first language.
And again I say, this is a mean spirited slam, unrelated to the original discussion. Clearly, from the depth and context of the polysyllabic verbiage I have applied in the overall discussion, English is my first language. (I have a Journalism degree, if that counts for anything.) Knowing this, my Christian Brother deliberately chose words to attempt to belittle my knowledge and intellect. I have to say that this is, by my reading of the Source Document, un-Christian behavior. I can endlessly discuss my opinion with my Christian Brother, but I am sadly disappointed to find that he thinks he strengthens his argument by character attack. This reasoning is easily seen as being parallel to his Creationist views...that it is more important to force his "hard facts" upon a potential convert at the risk of sacrificing the Sacrifice of Christ. Behavior like this will make a non-Christian say, "Hey, those Christians talk a good line about encouragement and loving one another, but look at how they really act." If there is no difference between the attacks a non-Christian makes while arguing his views, and this apparent attack made by a Christian upon another Christian while arguing his views, where is thy salt? If they do these things in the green wood, what will happen in the dry wood?
Anyway, my 2c. I do what the Bible instructs me...I went to him in a post asking for an apology, and have received none. I now go before the entire "church" and say, I am asking for the same. If I have inadvertently committed the same sin, call me on it and I will cheerfully apologize for it.
Until it's been subject to peer review, it can only be considered a first draft. As has been pointed out, the article seems to ignore more mundane explanations (like CO2 dissolved in water); what it needs to do is rule them out.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof
I don't know about 'Christ's ambassadors', but anti-evos are notorious for mangled and misleading quotations, as you know.
IMO, it's one of the principle reasons that they aren't taken very seriously by scientists. That kind of behavior doesn't usually pass peer review.
Don't make fun of the President here. Go to some l*b*r*l forum like DU
It's an active area of research. There is, for example, the RNA world hypothesis, which you can easily research online if you're interested.
PS what Pasteur showed was that modern-day bacteria, yeasts, etc. do not form in sterile chicken broth, juice, etc. (the basis of canning), in a few months or years. His discovery says absolutely nothing about the chemical processes in the early atmosphere an hydrosphere, where the chemical conditions were quite different, and there was much more time.. (No-one is proposing that primoridial soup is chicken broth!)
While I can see your point as articulated about not wanting to alienate an unbeliever, we are commanded to believe that the entire Bible is indeed THE "literal" unadulterated word of God.
To pick and choose which scripture is true and which is a "fairy tale" not only invalidates the entire Book as a lie, but makes a mockery of Christ Himself following such a Book.
BTW, it is possible to be tactful and humble about witnessing to anyone (scientists included), without getting an elephant gun out and arrogantly smashing to bits prior belief systems.
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.