WHAT?? Are you saying we (as in geoscientists) are accepting accepted dates because of what we already know
Yes - absolutely.
Why else are the discard/reject dates rejected ?
KBS Tuff was one dating event that was used by me to show this.
but our scientific research endeavors (i.e., age-dating studies) are actually bogus because we already know the dates we are going to get so it's we're really just putting on a show when we conduct research?
You will NEVER leave the ballpark of what is already known/published.
And what is already known/published is a database of self-fulfilling predictions that has no independant and external accuracy check.
I and Milton are saying what is already known and published is based upon at its origin dating parameters that were subjectively estimated while the ones doing the estimates allowed their conclusions to exist under the false guise that they were scientifically determined.
I and Milton are saying that the only true independant and external dating accuracy checks substantiate enough technique failures that quite rightly falsify any claim that says dating techniques are reliable deserving of no asterisk.
And because of this so-called deception, we should not be trusted?
The parents are always the last to find out and believe terrible things about their kids.
I'm sorry - you are not trusted except by your own kind.
The vast God-believing public pays no attention to the twin message of atheism surreptitiously wrapped into your scientific conclusions.
Are you saying that unless we get the 'right' dates - or the preconceived dates or pre-selected dates - that we are throwing away all the others?
Well said.
You are demanding that trust and faith be granted to you evo-scientists.
I thought trust and faith were anathema to scientific enquiry ?
This proves EVERYONE has faith - the only issue is the object.
As it turns out, thanks to Milton and others, evo dating schemes are at origin based upon a need for immense time. This is your "scientifically determined external benchmark" = posture taken just to contradict the Bible.
The only problem is the Bible supports an old Earth.
4.6 billion ?
No one can even comprehend a million years.
The point:
This present day's absolute dating declarations are deceptive presented as such.
The total lack of asterisks becomes the basis to not trust in lieu of falsification evidence.
WT writes:
Errors by dating scientists and the subsequent "intellectual phase-locking" is a scientific euphemism for correcting the error in favor of something already accepted. This is nothing more than cheating under the false pretense of scientific proof.
You answered "huh ?"
Are you saying that you didn't know this ?
My only point, here, once again, is the appearance of scientific proof produced via a very unscientific solution.
ahahahaha PROFESSIONAL SUICIDE??? Did you not read what I wrote earlier? EVERY scientist dreams of the day they can cross swords on the 'accepted consensus.'
Tell that to Velikovsky.
You are being deliberately naieve.
WT writes:
Do techniques work sometimes ?
Yes, but not all the times. This and the reasons stated above equate to the absolute declarations that evolution makes and believes tantamount to crying wolf.
responding Roxrkool writes:
yes, they only work when it happens to benefit YECs - how perfectly convenient.
I just want to remind that I said techniques do work but not all the time.
™ Version 4.2