Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Sir Sisman embraces true pseudoscience, no hobby!

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... [post #4696] ... [post #4704] ... [post #4704] ... Hi, King. I can tell that this stuff is hard for you to understand, because (1) I answered your question
    Message 1 of 32 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, King Davis wrote:
      [post #4696]
      > How do you are anyone else know the bones are 160,000 years old?
      > Hard to understand,

      [post #4704]
      > I read the so called Ethiopian discovery, but it just says
      > 160,000 years ago, but does not say how they came up with with
      > number, even if they all have 3 PhD's, just give that number
      > proves nothing, what method of dating did they use. Then what
      > are the scientific pro's and con's of this method. If it was
      > carbon 14, then one big problem with that is the rate of
      > formation in not ewual to the rate of decay, so are they
      > problems with argon and other dating methods? Archelogy dates
      > samples by which layer they are found and then date the layer by
      > the fossil they find, this circular reasoning. Still hard for
      > some of us to understand,

      [post #4704]
      > I know you thin the Berkley Geochronlogy know more than me, but
      > again you are wrong. Do I have you permission to forward this
      > the a geologist or another scientist? Thanks,

      Hi, King.

      I can tell that this stuff is hard for you to understand, because (1)
      I answered your question directly in my previous reply to you, I even
      quoted the specifically relevant paragraph from the article for you,
      and you read the answer but didn't even know it, and (2) earlier you
      wrote that you "have studied scientific dating for 40+ years," and
      yet in these 40+ years you somehow seem to have completely missed the
      important fact that C14 dating isn't even used for dating anything
      older than about 50,000 years because the C14 has decayed to
      extremely miniscule amounts. (I don't want to confuse you too much,
      but for completeness I need to point out here that in recent years
      labs using state-of-the-art equipment have been able to extend this
      limit up to around 80,000 years, but the accuracy of the estimate
      suffers proportionately.) Thus, for a 160,000 year old sample the C14
      dating method is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. And look at that - I see you
      spouting the standard confused silliness of the YEC rhetoric about
      index fossils! Perhaps your 40+ years of study has been spent reading
      too much clueless creationist propaganda? Yes, that's what I figured.
      Don't feel too bad - many years ago I used to make the same mistake.
      It is your demonstration of basic errors and confusion like this that
      I KNOW that the guys at the Berkeley Geochronology Center know more
      than you. 98.6% of the time you young earth creationists don't know
      what the heck you're even talking about, and the other 1.4% of the
      time you're talking about the weather.

      Anyway, let me help you focus a little better. If I can. Please try
      to pay closer attention this time. From my previous post to you (post
      #4691):

      | The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found
      | were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination
      | of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in
      | the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC
      | Berkeley adjunct associate professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of
      | Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University
      | in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate
      | the dated layers.

      "160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest
      anatomically modern humans" by Robert Sanders (Jun. 11, 2003)
      http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/
      11_oldest-humans.shtml
      [note line-wrapping of link]

      If you didn't pick that up after reading my previous reply to you,
      and you didn't pick it up after reading the original UC Berkeley news
      release, maybe you should consider going back and reading that
      article again, more slowly this time and paying better attention to
      the details. In my post I also pointed out to you that this is the
      text of a news release for general consumption, and I told you
      that "detailed information about the dating of the layers is in the
      actual Nature article (not the news release), which you'd have to
      access at your library - or pay for a subscription to on the
      internet."

      Regarding the argon/argon method in general, I suggest that you refer
      to the following online article:

      "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"
      by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
      PDF version by popular demand:
      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf

      You should also keep in mind that we now live in the 21st century and
      Google is your friend.

      By the way, I hate to give you more stuff that's hard to understand
      but I also have to point out to you that with respect to the
      religious dogma of young earth creationism, on the most general and
      fundamental issue we know that the dogma is completely wrong, and in
      the field of astronomy we happen to know that young earth creationism
      is wrong *by direct observation of the distant past* that young earth
      creationists pretend doesn't exist. I guess that in your 40+ years of
      dedication to creationist propaganda about scientific dating you
      somehow missed the entire field of astronomy as well. Why am I not
      surprised?

      So I repeat my initial point, which is that the story of Adam and Eve
      is a myth, and has been known to be a myth for several decades. The
      young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 (a 6,000 year old
      Earth) has been known to be a myth for over 200 years. When Keith
      Sisman makes an argument and then proceeds to justify it with the
      story of Adam and Eve, he is basing his argument on a myth - which
      means that it's a pretty silly argument. I wonder what kind of
      harness Apollo uses?

      Regards,
      Todd Greene
      http://www.geocities.com/greeneto

      P.S.: I always give people blanket permission to freely quote me or
      even copy my entire posts if they want. (In fact, with guys like you
      I definitely PREFER that you copy my entire posts because I hate it
      when you quote me out of context in the confused manner that you guys
      are notorious for.) All I ever ask is that I be properly attributed.
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... [post #4696] ... [post #4704] ... [post #4704] ... Hi, King. I can tell that this stuff is hard for you to understand, because (1) I answered your question
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, King Davis wrote:
        [post #4696]
        > How do you are anyone else know the bones are 160,000 years old?
        > Hard to understand,

        [post #4704]
        > I read the so called Ethiopian discovery, but it just says
        > 160,000 years ago, but does not say how they came up with with
        > number, even if they all have 3 PhD's, just give that number
        > proves nothing, what method of dating did they use. Then what
        > are the scientific pro's and con's of this method. If it was
        > carbon 14, then one big problem with that is the rate of
        > formation in not ewual to the rate of decay, so are they
        > problems with argon and other dating methods? Archelogy dates
        > samples by which layer they are found and then date the layer by
        > the fossil they find, this circular reasoning. Still hard for
        > some of us to understand,

        [post #4704]
        > I know you thin the Berkley Geochronlogy know more than me, but
        > again you are wrong. Do I have you permission to forward this
        > the a geologist or another scientist? Thanks,

        Hi, King.

        I can tell that this stuff is hard for you to understand, because (1)
        I answered your question directly in my previous reply to you, I even
        quoted the specifically relevant paragraph from the article for you,
        and you read the answer but didn't even know it, and (2) earlier you
        wrote that you "have studied scientific dating for 40+ years," and
        yet in these 40+ years you somehow seem to have completely missed the
        important fact that C14 dating isn't even used for dating anything
        older than about 50,000 years because the C14 has decayed to
        extremely miniscule amounts. (I don't want to confuse you too much,
        but for completeness I need to point out here that in recent years
        labs using state-of-the-art equipment have been able to extend this
        limit up to around 80,000 years, but the accuracy of the estimate
        suffers proportionately.) Thus, for a 160,000 year old sample the C14
        dating method is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. And look at that - I see you
        spouting the standard confused silliness of the YEC rhetoric about
        index fossils! Perhaps your 40+ years of study has been spent reading
        too much clueless creationist propaganda? Yes, that's what I figured.
        Don't feel too bad - many years ago I used to make the same mistake.
        It is your demonstration of basic errors and confusion like this that
        I KNOW that the guys at the Berkeley Geochronology Center know more
        than you. 98.6% of the time you young earth creationists don't know
        what the heck you're even talking about, and the other 1.4% of the
        time you're talking about the weather.

        Anyway, let me help you focus a little better. If I can. Please try
        to pay closer attention this time. From my previous post to you (post
        #4691):

        | The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found
        | were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination
        | of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in
        | the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC
        | Berkeley adjunct associate professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of
        | Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University
        | in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate
        | the dated layers.

        "160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest
        anatomically modern humans" by Robert Sanders (Jun. 11, 2003)
        http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/
        11_oldest-humans.shtml
        [note line-wrapping of link]

        If you didn't pick that up after reading my previous reply to you,
        and you didn't pick it up after reading the original UC Berkeley news
        release, maybe you should consider going back and reading that
        article again, more slowly this time and paying better attention to
        the details. In my post I also pointed out to you that this is the
        text of a news release for general consumption, and I told you
        that "detailed information about the dating of the layers is in the
        actual Nature article (not the news release), which you'd have to
        access at your library - or pay for a subscription to on the
        internet."

        Regarding the argon/argon method in general, I suggest that you refer
        to the following online article:

        "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"
        by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
        http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
        PDF version by popular demand:
        http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf

        You should also keep in mind that we now live in the 21st century and
        Google is your friend.

        By the way, I hate to give you more stuff that's hard to understand
        but I also have to point out to you that with respect to the
        religious dogma of young earth creationism, on the most general and
        fundamental issue we know that the dogma is completely wrong, and in
        the field of astronomy we happen to know that young earth creationism
        is wrong *by direct observation of the distant past* that young earth
        creationists pretend doesn't exist. I guess that in your 40+ years of
        dedication to creationist propaganda about scientific dating you
        somehow missed the entire field of astronomy as well. Why am I not
        surprised?

        So I repeat my initial point, which is that the story of Adam and Eve
        is a myth, and has been known to be a myth for several decades. The
        young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 (a 6,000 year old
        Earth) has been known to be a myth for over 200 years. When Keith
        Sisman makes an argument and then proceeds to justify it with the
        story of Adam and Eve, he is basing his argument on a myth - which
        means that it's a pretty silly argument. I wonder what kind of
        harness Apollo uses?

        Regards,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto

        P.S.: I always give people blanket permission to freely quote me or
        even copy my entire posts if they want. (In fact, with guys like you
        I definitely PREFER that you copy my entire posts because I hate it
        when you quote me out of context in the confused manner that you guys
        are notorious for.) All I ever ask is that I be properly attributed.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.