RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 01 2007,14:47)
You can't get enough of that Good Sal stuff?
Don't Click here

           
Quote
If you see me supposedly accept something as true, it may not be that I actually believe it, but I accept it only for the sake of argument in order to disprove it. If you google on "proof by contradiction" hopefully you'll have a better grasp of my line of argumentation.

As far as the 10,000 figure, it is only a personal opinion and not a scientific one, based on the geneology of Christ.

Sal has his own Ban Button now!

Here there be Tard          
Quote
Tiggy was not honoring the spirit of the forum rules. He is free to start threads here and if anyone wants to listen to him, they can. Thread starters are under no obligation to host participants on a thread who will not honor simple requests such as sticking to the topic at hand, or even showing courtesy to a thread starters wishes.


In that vein, so as to let Tiggy still have his say, but to keep the discussion orderly, I split Tiggy off to his own thread here: Tiggy's C-14 Independent lines of evidence. Everyone interested in what he has to say is invited to hear his side of the story.

However, with respect to this thread, he is un-invited. He is free of course to reciprocate and uninvite me from his thread.


This whole thread is Salvadorian in quality and anyone with at least a Class 30b TardFilter or better is invited to read it. [Pregnant and lactating women should observe the Standard Precautions.]  Sal begins by posting a pretty colored picture of a graph titled "Aspartic Acid Racemization Constant versus the Standard Geologic Timescale Associated Fossil Age"

It plots something apparently having to do with racemization for "Shell, Total Content", "Shell, Free Component", "Coral", "Bone", "Wood" and "Dung" (Yes, dung.  Don't ask.) and, as I say the colors are very pretty.  The horizontal axis is calibrated from 100 to 10 million years.  The vertical axis is calibrated from 0.01 to 10 and labeled "Racemization Constant".  

WTF all this has to do with Carbon 14, which only works to 70,000 years if you have an excellent sample and the very latest equipment I don't know and I don't think Sal does either.

Sal tells us that, "In 2004 some of my personal research augmented that of Loma Linda/GRI (the finest YEC organization on the planet)."  Please don't laugh.  The young man is trying to make a point.  He goes on to say, "Loma Linda/GRI is a real university with a hospital and staff of YEC scientists."  (Imagine!)  Furthermore, "The scientists in 2004 even made the cover of the prestigious scientific journal Geology....." (You can almost hear Darwinism crumbling.)

Sal further informs us that, "For example look at the BLUE dots slanted downward. This means C-14 is off."  How the f___ he comes to that conclusion, I don't know, since the blue dots start at about the 50,000 year mark and continue to about 5 million years.  I would invite Mr. Cordova to tell us how this squares with the 0-70,000 year range of carbon dating, but I don't want to be known as the man who triggered a Class 15 Interterrestrial Tard Rip with Oak Leaf Cluster.

Sal does have a ready explanation, of course: "I concluded the C-14 dates may as well have been pulled out of the air! And in fact it came as no surprise that one of the researchers who provided some of the dates did in fact pull them out of the air!"  And he goes on to name names of the miscreant who provides the bad data and provides a link to that well known Scientific Journal, WorldNutDaily to back that claim up.  Unfortunately, the data that Sal is discrediting is the data that Sal is presenting to us as confirming his er... theory.  I mean, he does say, "If C-14 dates were accurate, we would see the dots below line up horizontally, not slanted down."  And they do slant down, thus "disproving" carbon-14 dating.  Yet some of that slanting down data was pulled out of the air and Sal explicitly says that the data that proves Sal's point was plucked out of the air ... my head is spinning.



Unfortunately, after the Opening Post, things go downhill rapidly.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]