quote:
Thank you to all who have commented, with the exception of the inidividual who accused me of 'cuttin-and-pasting' and the one who suggested I had retreated.
If you stay around long you'll notice a pattern of posting and running which creationists frequently employ. Usually, the perp will start a topic with an enormously long post-- often cut-n-pasted from another site-- then vanish after only a few cursory responses to critics. Frequently, the perp will start several topics in similar manner. These lead to little discussion and it is quite irritating to dig into a thread only to have the initiator take his ball and go home. I am certainly glad you are back, but so far you have only worked your way to the 'cursory responses' stage. Perhaps you could work up some substantial reply?
quote:
One very obvious reaction after reading the comments is that people did not like the 'embarassments' and 'oops' section.
You flatter yourself. It isn't a matter of liking or not liking. It is a matter of knowing good science from garbage. Your 'embarrasments' are in fact embarassing, but not to us, to you.
quote:
Please understand that I realize (as I stated in the article) that one can find reasons to excuse these errors. However dispite this knowledge, the ages on these objects are not changed.
This doesn't make sense. Your 'errors' aren't errors. We know what went wrong-- people with a Biblical agenda. Why would we change the dates?
quote:
Also, perhaps conveniently, not one individual attempted to respond to Dr. Robert Lee qoutation which I quoted from the 1981 Anthropological Journal of Canada.
Anyone have access to this article? I can't find it online. All I can find are hundreds of creationists sites quoting the same couple of sentences.
quote:
One of my readers informed me that carbon daters take this into account (that the C-14/C-12 ratio is not even) however if they accept that steady state has not been reached that this world is under 30 000 years old.
One of my readers-- me-- informed me that the C-14/12 levels aren't dead stable, but pretty close. Ice cores, varves, tree rings, etc. all demonstrate this, as has already been pointed out to you.
As for the second half of that statement, "If we assume the world has the characteristics of a young earth, then we conclude that it is a young earth?" You can't be serious.
quote:
Any carbon dates in objects given an older date than that would then be false.
If all of the premises were wrong, then the conclusion would be wrong as well? Sort-of, technically no but the conclusion would not follow from the premises. Luckily, we have no reason to believe the premises are wrong.
quote:
Since many believe that the world is billions of years old, they certainly cannot appeal to Carbon dating.
This doesn't make sense. Those believing the world to be billions of years old certainly can appeal to C-14 dating, though not to date objects older than about 40k years old. One cannot use C-14 to prove the world is billions of years old, nor can one use the abstract model of C-14 dating as a stand-alone method of proving the world to be even 30k years old. As you say, environmental factors can affect the dating. But we don't use the abstract model. We check the assumptions against other data and get real world figures.
quote:
If steady state has been reached we must deal with the issues I raised in the article.
Again, this doesn't make sense. If a steady state has been reached, C-14 works like a charm.
quote:
If it has not been reached then there are very serious problems, big enough to invalidate the whole carbon dating system if it keeps coming up with objects supposedly millions of years old.
If a C-14 dating system comes up with dates in the millions, there is something wrong. C-14 is not accurate past 40k or so. Are you truly this ignorant of the dating system you criticise?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2