It's the rant that encourages me to dig deeper. Consider Al Gore's rants, especially now that he's losing ground and credibility. Consider the hi-jacked emails, what if a conservative had written such incriminatory evidence. One can't measure the accuracy of a laboratory from within, and we can't isolate one part of our climate system from another to perform measurements. We can't separate cause from effect,
As for flood geology, I stepped out of the box so I can see why striations in sedimentary rock appear as uniform as if sketched by a child with those pencils held together with a rubber band. Or why the geological column is not found complete and in the proper order anywhere in the world. Or why the vast fossil graveyards, or the Tibetan Plateau (750,000 square miles of sedimentary deposits thousands of feet thick) now at an elevation of three miles, or the billions of fossils in the Karoo Formation, or the Miocene Shales, and the Cumberland Bone Cave? How about the amount of clay and artistic license permitted in reconstruction of supposed hominids?
It appears that it's the evolutionist that has his fingers in his ears and hands over his eyes ranting yadi-ya-ya-ya.
Carbon dating is based upon the half-life of carbon 14 (5730 years) and an assumption that the carbon 14/12 ratio has been constant. Also it can't date beyond several half-lives. Carbon dating is not very accurate for fossils as they are mineralized, contaminated and contain little original carbon 14.
Carbon dating is based upon the half-life of carbon 14 (5730 years) and an assumption that the carbon 14/12 ratio has been constant. Also it can't date beyond several half-lives. Carbon dating is not very accurate for fossils as they are mineralized, contaminated and contain little original carbon 14.
Measuring the carbon 14/12 ratios against the ratios of historically recorded artifacts allows us to calibrate the scale, and proves the consistency (or inconsistency) of the ratio throughout the applicable timeframe. This is just one possible means of verifying the accuracy of the method. The point is: There is no "assumption".
All your other points are quite valid, and known not only to creationists, but to scientists as well. The people who use carbon 14 dating are very well aware of the circumstances in which it fails. Which is why carbon dating IS NOT USED IN THOSE CASES.
As far as the time limit, you would have a point but for the fact that there are many MANY other radiometric dating techniques using a wide variety of radioactive materials.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Measuring the carbon 14/12 ratios against the ratios of historically recorded artifacts allows us to calibrate the scale, and proves the consistency (or inconsistency) of the ratio throughout the applicable timeframe. This is just one possible means of verifying the accuracy of the method. The point is: There is no "assumption".
All your other points are quite valid, and known not only to creationists, but to scientists as well. The people who use carbon 14 dating are very well aware of the circumstances in which it fails. Which is why carbon dating IS NOT USED IN THOSE CASES.
As far as the time limit, you would have a point but for the fact that there are many MANY other radiometric dating techniques using a wide variety of radioactive materials.
Fossil dating is usually by dating some nearby igneous rock as sedimentary rock (due to it being a conglomerate) is not datable. Then one finds the evolutionary assumptions with regard to original potassium (or whatever) content as well as correlation with the geological column and circular logic. Tree ring data has been used both to support and debunk radiocarbon dates.
Fossil dating is usually by dating some nearby igneous rock as sedimentary rock (due to it being a conglomerate) is not datable. Then one finds the evolutionary assumptions with regard to original potassium (or whatever) content as well as correlation with the geological column and circular logic. Tree ring data has been used both to support and debunk radiocarbon dates.
What's your point? Are you trying to suggest that scientists who utilize these methods are unaware of these issues?
Just out of curiosity, who do you think *discovered* these issues? Was it someone reading it out of a scientific journal, trying to disprove a scientific theory, or was it the scientist who published that article in the first place?
Creationism is not a theory. It is an untestable hypothesis. Evolution is a theory.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
What's your point? Are you trying to suggest that scientists who utilize these methods are unaware of these issues?
Just out of curiosity, who do you think *discovered* these issues? Was it someone reading it out of a scientific journal, trying to disprove a scientific theory, or was it the scientist who published that article in the first place?
Creationism is not a theory. It is an untestable hypothesis. Evolution is a theory.
Neither theory is falsifiable. Scientists tend to see what they are looking for, at times I wonder at their logic (or lack thereof). They are not trying to deceive (except for the Al Gore cronies) but do not consider the alternatives to their opinions. When dates do not correlate with their belief or expectations they are tossed out. The calibration of dates at times uses fossils from assumed periods rather than "historical" objects. I have seen scientists provide a curve from data points that looked like spatter painting just because they knew the curve they wanted to see.
I moved to the creationist camp when I realized its scientists considered all the evidence. There is a lot of evidence out there, but little that suggests evolution. I visited Lucy in the museum at Addis Ababa and the only thing to suggest that Lucy was an evolutionary link rather than just an extinct creature was the evolutionary mindset. Someone suggested that it required a trained paleontologist to see it so I suggested that maybe the training was the problem. IOW the training would preclude any other observation or conclusion.
I will not change the minds of the unified threesome but others who may lurk reading these posts just might have their interest aroused and decide to check out the work of the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research or other creationist organizations. I changed camps when I came to the realization that most people believe in evolution simply because most people believe in evolution. I don't say that lightly because it proved true of the scientists and engineers surrounding me, they had never heard the other side of the story much less considered it. We had some excellent discussions and never a ya-ya session.
Creationism is not a theory. It is an untestable hypothesis. Evolution is a theory.
You're too kind. Before Science grew to modern status the Churches merely told people about Genesis or it's equivalent in different cultures. I was in a parochial elementary school in the 50's and there was no problem teaching science in class without reference to a literal bible. Today it's the same thing, most religions don't NEED a literal bible. The Fundies do.
Along came a quasi religious/political movement desperate to make Creationism an equal consideration. When that failed a retired pizza baron funded "Identity Design" which is simply Creationism in sheep's clothing.
Quote:
Dear Mr. Nelson
I have your letter and the best thing I can do is refer you to my published works, both scientific and popular. The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators and misquotation is the hall mark of their work. Responding to them is time wasting and a letter would not be adequate to put your questions to rest. There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me. My list of publications is attached.
Christians attack hominids in Kenya museum
Saturday, 9 September 2006by Lillian Omariba
Agen?e France-Presse
NAIROBI, Kenya, 9 September 2006: The debate between scientists and conservative Christians over evolution has hit Kenya, where an exhibit of one of the world's finest collections of early hominid fossils is under threat.
As the famed National Museum of Kenya prepares to re-open in 2007 after massive European Union-funded renovations, local evangelicals are demanding the display be removed or at least shunted to a less prominent location.
The Origins of Man exhibit, comprised of prehistoric finds from around Africa's Great Rift Valley considered by many to be the cradle of humanity, is offensive as it promotes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, they say.
"When museums put it out there that man evolved from apes, theologically they are affecting many people who are Christians, who believe God created us," said Bishop Boniface Adoyo, who is leading a campaign against the exhibit. "It's creating a big weapon against Christians that's killing our faith," he added, calling evolution theory an "insult" and dangerous to youths.
....
Many of the fossils were discovered by legendary paleontologists Louis and Mary Leakey in east Africa whose pre-historic finds around the Olduvai Gorge, Lake Victoria and Lake Turkana are seen by many as proof of Darwin's theory.
Their son, Richard, himself a noted anthropologist and conservationist, is particularly disturbed by the furore and is speaking out against what he says is a misguided attempt to reject sound science.
....
Officials at the museum, which houses priceless items including remains of hominid species dating back 1.7 million to 1.2 million years, are loath to get involved in the fractious debate but defend the exhibition.
"The fossils have confirmed Kenya's position as the cradle of mankind and have drawn large numbers of visitors," the museum said in a statement released shortly after Adoyo launched his campaign.
Officials at the museum, which houses priceless items including remains of hominid species dating back 1.7 million to 1.2 million years, are loath to get involved in the fractious debate but defend the exhibition.
"The fossils have confirmed Kenya's position as the cradle of mankind and have drawn large numbers of visitors," the museum said in a statement released shortly after Adoyo launched his campaign.
The Fundies seek to suppress evidence that nullifies their assbackward agenda. Their literalist religion is based on an outmoded book of parables, not Science.
Leakey wasn't a close minded humorless fellow, he proved that at cambridge;
Quote:
Student capers
At Cambridge University from 1922 to 1926, Louis caused quite a stir. He talked the authorities into allowing him to take Kikuyu as one of his two modern-language requirements by producing a testimonial to his proficiency in it signed with the thumb-print of Kikuyu Chief Koinange.1 Then, in lieu of attending lectures in Kikuyu, of which there were none, he had to coach the university supervisor allotted to him! This gave rise to the legend that he was ?the man who examined himself in Kikuyu?. Before going to Cambridge, Louis had offered his services to the London School of Oriental Studies to teach Kikuyu in their African Languages section. When Cambridge University asked the same London organization for two examiners in Kikuyu, they sent Leakey?s name, not realizing that he was also the student being examined. The impasse was solved when the supervisor assured the university that he could learn enough Kikuyu from Louis to be able to examine him in it!2
On another occasion Louis accepted a dare to say grace before dinner in Kikuyu instead of the customary Latin. He ?droned sonorously through it without one of the dons [teachers] noticing?.1
References
Morell, V., Ancestral Passions, Simon & Schuster, New York, p. 28, 1995.
Leakey, L.S.B., White African, Hodder and Stoughton, London, pp. 95, 156?57, 1937
Linear Mode
