RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (32) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Young Cosmos, A Salvador Cordova project< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:49   

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,12:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.

Ah but Sal's responded.  He says it's all in Bender's 1974 letter to Nature (quote-mined by creationist RH Brown).  So Sal
The answer was given by Bender:

"The differences [re 14C age] can be reconciled if it is assumed that the 14C age is wrong, but such an assertion would undermine other conclusions."

They would reject it because it does not conform to what they believe to be true. Darwinian evolution takes precedence over physical evidence.

The scientific community had people who were fully cognizant of these problems.

I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.

Fortunately, I can read the original.  So I respond:
Again with the Bender. You're taking one sentence out of a 33 year old letter to Nature that has had virtually no impact. Google Scholar has it cited 5 times, and 2 of those cites are by creationists: Brown and Gish. So I'd say its impact is virtually nil.

Why? Perhaps because Bada, who is the target of Bender's critique, gave a devastating reply in the same issue. (This is not cited by Brown. I wonder why?) Bada's response begins:


Bender's review of my work is both inaccurate and incomplete. He has not cited two of my publications dealing with aspartic acid racemisation dating. (Although one paper was only recently published. I sent Bender a preprint the first or this year when he informed me he was writing a review.) In those articles I show that after ‘calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.

No wonder nobody took Bender's critique seriously since then. Meanwhile Brown quotes one sentence as though it proves something and you quote indirectly (via Brown) rather than from the original paper. If you'd read the original, as I have, you'd see that it was dispatched immediately.

"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

  948 replies since July 31 2007,08:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (32) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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