Science Talk

Gabriel · Guest

Excerpt:

"But most interesting is the treatment of the radiocarbon dating
results. How often do we read that scientists have “dated” a rock
or fossil to a certain age, with the date then touted as
absolute, unquestionable, etc. (and anyone who refutes it
considered unscientific)? Yet here is a prime example of one of
the many flaws in radiometric dating: the fallibility of
preparation techniques. This is in addition, of course, to our
criticism of the faulty underlying assumptions of radiometric
dating."

"What we consistently see is that radiometric dates that fit
scientists’ presuppositions (such as the assumed evolutionary
timetable) are upheld without question, but those that contradict
other lines of evidence—including other calculated dates—are
challenged and usually forgotten, often with “lab errors” and
“contamination” taking the blame."

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/602/2

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/07/news-to-note-06072008#two

The subject is radiocarbon dating, and we think we smell a rat!

Almost anyone familiar with the debate over the age of the earth
is familiar with radiometric dating: testing for the existence of
various atomic isotopes in a substance, then using the determined
amount to extrapolate an age for the substance.

Creationists have long pointed out the numerous problems in
radiometric dating, including the underlying assumed rates of
decay, amount of initial concentration, presumption of a closed
system, and so forth. Interestingly, this week, radiocarbon
dating of rat bones from New Zealand raises the issue of just how
“foolproof” this radiometric dating method is.

The history of rats on New Zealand, while not a grade school
topic, is important to the anthropologists who have tried to
determine just when humans reached New Zealand. According to the
commonly accepted theory, rats were stowaways (or perhaps brought
as food) on the boats of the Polynesian explorers who first
reached New Zealand. Thus, based on the 1996 carbon-dating of rat
bones, some anthropologists concluded it was as early as 200 B.C.
when the first humans (and rats) reached the islands.

But wait! That study has been controversial, because
anthropologists have found no legacies of human settlement that
would date to that time period. Instead, other anthropologists
believe it wasn’t until the 13th century that rats and humans
arrived. But what to do with the carbon-dating results from the
1996 study? Simple: it must have been a lab error, these
anthropologists argue.

In search of a verdict, paleoecologist Janet Wilmshurst of New
Zealand’s Landcare Research has used a new preparation technique
to radiocarbon date rat bones from the same excavation site of
the bones used in the 1996 study. The result? The new tests
indicated that all the bones were from the year 1280 or later.
Next, Wilmshurst’s team tried the new technique on the same bones
used in the 1996 study. This time, all the bones dated to—you
guessed it!—later than 1280. Finally, the team chose to date
ancient seeds thought to have been gnawed by the rats (from the
same excavation site). The seeds all dated from 1290 or later.

Answers in Genesis doesn’t have a particular opinion on when rats
arrived in New Zealand, though the Bible tells us that humans
would have arrived after the dispersion at Babel. Given that the
dispersion happened midway through the 23rd century BC, this
leaves more than 3,000 years, based on this new research, for
humans to have found their way to New Zealand—clearly sufficient
time.

But most interesting is the treatment of the radiocarbon dating
results. How often do we read that scientists have “dated” a rock
or fossil to a certain age, with the date then touted as
absolute, unquestionable, etc. (and anyone who refutes it
considered unscientific)? Yet here is a prime example of one of
the many flaws in radiometric dating: the fallibility of
preparation techniques. This is in addition, of course, to our
criticism of the faulty underlying assumptions of radiometric
dating.

What we consistently see is that radiometric dates that fit
scientists’ presuppositions (such as the assumed evolutionary
timetable) are upheld without question, but those that contradict
other lines of evidence—including other calculated dates—are
challenged and usually forgotten, often with “lab errors” and
“contamination” taking the blame.

So next time an evolutionist friend tries to tell you about how
radiometric dates “prove” how old the earth is, how old fossils
are, etc., just answer that you think you smell a rat!

Ken · Guest

On Jun 7, 11:25 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote: a
pile of crap then
"think you smell a rat!"

The ONLY rat we smell arouind here is the one eating your brain, ya X-
Posting Dumb Ass

Cory Albrecht · Guest

Gabriel wrote:

Thurisaz the Einherjer · Guest

Morontheist babbliel:

Guest

In alt.religion.christian Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:20:24 -0400, Cory Albrecht
<coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Gabriel wrote:
: > Excerpt:
: >
: > "But most interesting is the treatment of the radiocarbon dating
: > results. How often do we read that scientists have “dated” a rock
: > or fossil to a certain age, with the date then touted as
: > absolute, unquestionable, etc. (and anyone who refutes it
: > considered unscientific)? Yet here is a prime example of one of
: > the many flaws in radiometric dating: the fallibility of
: > preparation techniques. This is in addition, of course, to our
: > criticism of the faulty underlying assumptions of radiometric
: > dating."
: >
: > "What we consistently see is that radiometric dates that fit
: > scientists’ presuppositions (such as the assumed evolutionary
: > timetable) are upheld without question, but those that contradict
: > other lines of evidence—including other calculated dates—are
: > challenged and usually forgotten, often with “lab errors” and
: > “contamination” taking the blame."
: >
: >
: >
: > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/602/2
: >
: > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/07/news-to-note-06072008#two
:
: Gotta love how you make it all out to be about errors, but you never
: comment upon the fact that further tests were done use a *different*
: method, which *confirm* the initial tests.

You seem to have forgotten to provide a citation, backing up what
you're claiming.

:
: The fact that the scientists involved in making the first set of tests
: thought that something was wrong and went and had somebody else make new
: tests shows how scientists are willing to admit when they have made a
: mistake. If they weren't so willing they'd have never asked somebody
: else to do the retesting with a different method.
:
: This also shows how scientists are willing to accept new information
: which goes *against* their presuppositions, which is quite the opposite
: of what you (and AiG) are trying to claim.
:
: Further, the fact that two *different* ways of testing for the amount of
: remaining radioactive materials remaining gave the same result shows the
: accuracy of radio-dating and not it's inaccuracy like you try to claim.
: Problem for you and AiG is that when lab contamination is suspected the
: rersults are always retested, usually with a different method. When the
: two tests agree, then it is unlikely that contamination was a problem
: and the dates are accurate.
:
: IOW, you fell for AiG's incompetent obfuscation hook, line and sinker.

Devil's Advocaat · Guest

On 7 Jun, 20:35, Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:

Dave Oldridge · Guest

Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:uoge54lb36mj17teksk7apjrtajurri9rd@4ax.com:

Gabriel · Guest

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:46:50 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

: Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:uoge54lb36mj17teksk7apjrtajurri9rd@4ax.com:
:
: > On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:20:24 -0400, Cory Albrecht
: > <coryalbrecht@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >: Gabriel wrote:
: >: > Excerpt:
: >: >
: >: > "But most interesting is the treatment of the radiocarbon dating
: >: > results. How often do we read that scientists have “dated” a rock
: >: > or fossil to a certain age, with the date then touted as
: >: > absolute, unquestionable, etc. (and anyone who refutes it
: >: > considered unscientific)? Yet here is a prime example of one of
: >: > the many flaws in radiometric dating: the fallibility of
: >: > preparation techniques. This is in addition, of course, to our
: >: > criticism of the faulty underlying assumptions of radiometric
: >: > dating."
: >: >
: >: > "What we consistently see is that radiometric dates that fit
: >: > scientists’ presuppositions (such as the assumed evolutionary
: >: > timetable) are upheld without question, but those that contradict
: >: > other lines of evidence—including other calculated dates—are
: >: > challenged and usually forgotten, often with “lab errors” and
: >: > “contamination” taking the blame."
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >
: >: > http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/602/2
: >: >
: >: > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/07/news-to-note-060
: >: > 72008#two
: >:
: >: Gotta love how you make it all out to be about errors, but you never
: >: comment upon the fact that further tests were done use a *different*
: >: method, which *confirm* the initial tests.
: >
: > You seem to have forgotten to provide a citation, backing up what
: > you're claiming.
: >
: >:
: >: The fact that the scientists involved in making the first set of
: >: tests thought that something was wrong and went and had somebody else
: >: make new
: >: tests shows how scientists are willing to admit when they have made
: >: a
: >: mistake. If they weren't so willing they'd have never asked somebody
: >: else to do the retesting with a different method.
: >:
: >: This also shows how scientists are willing to accept new information
: >: which goes *against* their presuppositions, which is quite the
: >: opposite of what you (and AiG) are trying to claim.
: >:
: >: Further, the fact that two *different* ways of testing for the amount
: >: of remaining radioactive materials remaining gave the same result
: >: shows the accuracy of radio-dating and not it's inaccuracy like you
: >: try to claim. Problem for you and AiG is that when lab contamination
: >: is suspected the rersults are always retested, usually with a
: >: different method. When the two tests agree, then it is unlikely that
: >: contamination was a problem and the dates are accurate.
: >:
: >: IOW, you fell for AiG's incompetent obfuscation hook, line and
: >: sinker.
:
: And you continue to promote them despite all evidence.
:
: The devil loves AiG.

Actually the devil hates anyone that defends God's word (written
or otherwise) as being truth and trustworthy.

That was Adam and Eve's problem (which you should have learned
even if you think it was a made up story, which is ironic, as the
story itself you violate its lesson and don't trust that what God
tells us about Adam and Eve ever happened at all, or that God
created the universe exactly how He said He did): they allowed
themselves to doubt God's word that "they would die" if they
disobeyed God and ate fruit from the forbidden tree anyway. They
listened to the lie of Satan that God's word was not trustworthy,
and we know what happened to them.

Genesis 3:1-5 KJVR Now the serpent was more subtle than any
beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto
the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of
the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat
of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of
the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So there you go. Satan convincing Eve that God's word cannot be
trusted, and that she shouldn't obey Him. And she listened to the
lie.

So the devil hates anyone that tries to remind us that God's word
is to be trusted. The devil will use anyone he can to attack
God's word as not being trustworthy, and to attack websites that
promote God's word being trustworthy.

Not to mention that evolutionism is just satan's latest attack on
God's word not being trustworthy. And people that want to follow
God think they're so much wiser than Adam and Eve that they
wouldn't fall for such deception!

Dave Oldridge · Guest

Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bmam54t7pjlkm9nckshvvour907skihjl0@4ax.com:

Guest

In alt.religion.christian Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gabriel · Guest

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:31:26 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

: In alt.religion.christian Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > they allowed
: > themselves to doubt God's word that "they would die" if they
: > disobeyed God and ate fruit from the forbidden tree anyway. They
: > listened to the lie of Satan that God's word was not trustworthy,
: > and we know what happened to them.
:
: Yes. We know that they did NOT die. So where are you taking this?

They died spiritually, and now instead of living forever, they
are destined to return to the dust they were created from.

Genesis 3:19 KJVR In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

:
:
: > And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5
:
: So God lied and the serpent was correct? Is that about right?

No, the serpent deceived them about what God meant.

:
:
: > So there you go. Satan convincing Eve that God's word cannot be
: > trusted,
:
: Wow. And Satan was 100% correct, and God made idle threats.

No more than it's an idle threat that if you disobey man's law
and kill someone you will be punished.

:
:
: > So the devil hates anyone that tries to remind us that God's word
: > is to be trusted.
:
: But this little story shows us that God's word cannot be trusted, and that
: the Devil's statements are correct?
:
:
: > Not to mention that evolutionism is just satan's latest attack on
: > God's word not being trustworthy. And people that want to follow
: > God think they're so much wiser than Adam and Eve that they
: > wouldn't fall for such deception!
:
: In order to reject "evolutionism" (which does't even exist as an "ism"),
: one must also reject big chunks of physics, biology, geology, chemistry,
: paleontology and cosmology.

Actually you don't. All of it remains perfectly intact even when
you reject the unobservable, untestable and unverifiable lie of
molecules to man evolutionism as a naturalistic explanation for
the origin of all biological diversity of life.

: If your charge about "evolutionism" is
: correct, then nearly all the sciences also need to be rejected. Do you
: agree?

Dave Oldridge · Guest

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote in
news:g4dnb3$95k$1@reader2.panix.com: