Actually when Barbarian observed that “It came from strata which were dated in tens of millions of years old.â€Â, Unred typo questioned if these were irrefutable dates calculated by the infallible prophets of the TOE. Then Barbarian made the offer to update unred typo on the current evolutionary theories on dating layers, at which point unred typo responded that keeping up with the current infallible doctrines of the TOE kissers is even harder than keeping up with the edicts of the RCC. Although this was said in rather taunting humor, Barbarian replied that anger management might be a problem for unred typo instead of ignorance. Then the Barbarian accused unred typo of demanding that science must be infallible and made rather condescending statements saying:
“Nothing humans do is infallible. The question is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to trust them. Would you like to learn why it is?†None of this ever really addressed the original question of these layer dates being infallible or not and unred typo is not the one who is demanding that science be undisputed. My question remains: Are the dates of the layers irrefutable? Can you, in your wildest imagination, ever suppose that the dates are completely wrong by some uncalculated factor, much the same way scientists were influenced by an error in Biblical understanding about the world’s orbit around the sun? The arrogance and passion with which the TOE is defended is reminiscent of that kind of religious fervor.
Barbarian’s insistence that unred typo is “badly used†by trusted people and his assertions of unred being “mislead†and “lied to†by some unnamed “they†are misinformed allegations. I get most of my questions by reading evolutionist’s sites, not creationist material. I think the best way to be informed is by reading first hand information, and using common sense to assess what is being said.
Barbarian observed:
You sound just a mite skeered of the truth, son. Here's a place to start. Read, do the interactive demos and then tell me if you find any of it false:
http://vcourseware3.calstatela.edu/Virt ... Rocks.html
You need a lesson in parent/child relationships. I’m not your son. Your site’s interactive example is plainly flawed from the git-go. The instructions say:
On the animated graph below, click and move the slider to the right to simulate the passage of time in a mineral. Each decay of a radioactive parent isotope leaves behind a stable daughter isotope. Notice the decrease in parent U-235 (red spots) and the simultaneous increase in daughter Pb-207 (blue spots) as time passes. The red and blue curves represent the changing amounts of parent and daughter isotopes, respectively. The problem is that it is assumed that the mineral being tested originally had all parent U-235 and none of the daughter Pb-207. It is also assumed that the decay of the parent is the only way that more of the daughter Pb-207 could be present in the mineral. These are assumptions that I believe are entirely false. We know that weathering alters the chemistry of rocks, including their isotopic compositions and that a highly weathered rock may yield unreliable age information., but what don’t we know? Much more research is needed before we toss out the Biblical dates based on hypothetical assumptions.
I see a “it was once believed†phrase in the future of radio dating. Does this mean you can stop talking down to me now that I’m a ‘Virtual Radiochronologist?’
When it was asserted that the methods can not be assumed reliable beyond the range of recorded history, Barbarian wrote:
They lied to you about that, too. Recently, they calibrated the system, using lake varves, which are a special sort of lamina that are laid down one dark and one light layer each year. Some lakes have millions of years of them, and using material from them, one can get a good curve.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html
BTW, paleontologists don't use C-14, because it's only accurate out to a few tens of thousands of years.
Your sources are duping you into their lake varves scam. There is only assumption that the lamina consist of a light and dark layer per year. Actually, any pollen fall could cover the lake every few days, depending on what type of nearby trees, flowers or lake algae is blooming. When windblown dust settles over the lighter pollen, it distinguishes the layer. There is some counting going on. They are counting on the fact that most people won’t be wading out to the middle of the lake to take their own core samples and take the time to painstakingly count the layers and analize their composition one layer at a time. Do you know how thick the layers are? If they are only as thick as a slice of cheese, do you know how thick a million of them would be? If they are less than that, now you have me wondering what happened to all the other debris that settles on the lake bottom. Are you seriously believing that the only layers on the lake bottom are annual algae blooms? No fish poo, no rotten vegetation, no cosmic dust, no road dirt, no pine pollen, no ragweed, no dragonfly wings? Just a single light pollen bloom layer for the entire summer and a nice dark layer for the entire winter with no stirring up for, say, washout thunderstorms or spring flooding? Neat. Go with that. Sounds like a plan.
BTW, if paleontologists used the Carbon 14 method, they may be surprised at what they found and they hate that.
Barbarian mocked:
Godlike? No matter how badly you're doing, you can only make it worse by foolish accusations. Physicists just know more about physics than you or I. They know that radioisotope testing works, because they have carefully tested it. Here's one test, in which Argon/Argon testing came out with flying colors:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... mpeii.html
There’s a statement I agree with. Physicists just know more about physics than you or I. Here’s something you can agree with: they are not God and they don’t know what they don’t know. Do you believe it? The glowing Berkeley article about the success of Berkeley’s methods at your Berkeley web site is about as believable as the carbon 14 methods. I didn’t see anyone mention double blind testing overseen by an independent non Berkeley funded scientific watch group. “Oh look, we tested ourselves and we were right with more precision than we had originally hoped for.†The entire premise is flawed and the method utilizes the willingness of people to be charmed with elaborate claims by the profession.
Yes, isotopes exist and you can count them. You can count hairs on a dog’s back and how many he loses and gains in a year, and calculate a approximate ratio of growth rate to hair count, synchronized to the size and variety of dog and adjusted by the approximate climatic conditions factor with a nice chart to show the decline and/or increase and that will tell you the age of the dog, plus or minus 15 years. Who is going to argue with you? The number of isotopes that have decayed won’t tell you how many were there to start with or how many were added or subtracted during the past 5000 years. Who are they trying to fool? You or me or themselves? You seem to want to believe everything they tell you. I’m happy for you.
The Barbarian wote:
Yeah, the one I thought. Turns out the professor didn't even know how to work the machine. And his supervisors thought he was an "expert."
But even having stupid supervisors didn't save him. Eventually, his work was noticed by others, and they checked. And it didn't add up. And then the roof fell in on him.
He prospered by being obscure, and having little of any interest to others in the field. A quick check of journals shows 14 with his name mentioned, and not one in a journal of anthropology.
Don't have him cited in any of my books on human evolution, including two on Neandertals.
How about that?
Your cavalier statements are typical of the reaction of other TOE proponents on this board. Eventually his work was noticed? Right. The article sites a different picture than the one you paint: "The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past
30 years," the university said of the
widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.
“A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe,â€Â
The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is
only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a
major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to
rewrite prehistory."
"We had decided to subject many of these finds to modern techniques to check their authenticity so we sent them to Oxford [University] for testing," one of the researchers told The Sunday Telegraph. "It was a routine examination and in no way an attempt to discredit Prof. von Zieten." In their report, they called Protsch's
30 years of work a "dating disaster."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.
Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct
for decades. "A
lot of people looked the other way," he said.
: