Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

I've been doing some searching on Baugh since posting and it seems this man is an energy packed fellow who's scruples are not always so Christian, but nevertheless some of his stuff has a lot of people scratching their heads, me included. For example, his hammer head in stone is not refuted by the critics as being fraud, but they are claiming the stone was 19th century stone made naturally under the right chemical structure. It was found by some folks in 1934, I believe in London Tex. and ended up in his museum.As for the coal, again, the critics are not denying the cup is in coal but are claiming the cup was dropped by some former minors and the right conditions caused the coal to harden around it. The hammer head carbon dates from present to about 700 years, but Carl is suggesting that the thing was contaminated by too much new handling stuff to get an accurate date.One thing that disturbed me is Carl's educational credential claims. Yah, he has them, but under investigation some are not as bonafide as he seems to claim.In summary, I've now got mixed feelings. It appears to me that the critics are looking out for their own agendas on the cup in coal, the footprints and the hammer, but Carl is not squeeky clean on some stuff either. So the controversy goes on. Of course the majority are going to side against him simply because of majority positions on the issues at hand. Personally, all I want is for the truth to prevail and surface in all this.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-08-2003]

BTW, Crashy, me friend, you're either bein real lazy or playin games. Pop up some popcorn, (not too much butter) peck in "Carl Baugh" on Google and settle in on all the links. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-08-2003]

BTW (2)
The critics are contending that Carl's hammer head was a 19th century hammer by style, but my rebut to that is that a hammer is a hammer is a hammer. The Bible tells of the iron workers who existed before the flood, and they were not stupnagles, to be sure. They were as capable of making good hammers as anybody since until the industrial revolution, I'm sure. One of the Pro-Baugh links says his hammer is of superiour quality than any recent hammer, and please, if you do a search, do have a look at his side of the stories (few) as well as that of the critics. Carl is alleging the rock to be creatious by definition.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-08-2003]

quote:

---

.......there are many different kinds of chariot wheels from many different civilisations and eras. Well there are also many different types of 'hammers' as well, ranging from hard wooden clubs to stone headed hammers to iron headed hammers.

---

Your deceptive strategy: Make Buz look idiotic by spinning and back to topic before buz defends. I made the point that there were ironworkers then and there's just not that many ways to make a carpenter's iron hammer, as the artifact was. On the other hand, there's lots of chariot wheel designs.

quote:

---

Archeology reveals no New World iron technology in the form of ancient Indian furnaces. In fact, archeology reveals no metal-working capability among the Indians whatsoever.

---

That's hardly a guideline for what was going on around the world in more civilized cultures. There's either gotta be something wrong with the dates or the iron all rusted away if the earliest iron work found is dated 2000 BC. Mankind is just not that stupid as to have gone milleniums without the use of iron. I'll go with the Bibllical record, thanks.

quote:

---

What is it in the Biblical record that leads you to believe that there were iron workers pre-flood? Do you have any cross-confirming evidence that would tend to lend credibility to your Biblical interpretation?

---

Genesis 4:22 (about 3900BC) "And Zilla, she also bore Tubal-cain, and instructor of every artificer in brass and iron;.........."
According to the record, he came of the line of Cain.

quote:

---

The hammer was found in the Americas. What leads you to believe the technology of cultures in other regions is relevant?

---

Because according to the record, God confounded the speech, creating multilinguistics, scattered the people and likely created the races, (God being the first racist ) about 2250 BC. and there were, according to the record, ironworkers long before that.

quote:

---

The dating was reported by David Lines, a Creationist. Given the reliability of radiocarbon dating, on what basis do you challenge the dating?

---

I didn't necessarily challenge the dating of the 2000 yr iron. I simply said that either some dating was flawed or all the older iron had rusted away.

quote:

---

Yes, most ancient iron has rusted away. It is not that common archeologically to find ancient iron. Archeological evidence of iron technology comes from mines, from furnaces and from ancient records. The mere existence of bronze implements and weapons, given their immense inferiority to iron, places your position in question, since what civilization would use bronze when iron was available? What civilization could long defend itself against neighbors with iron (they couldn't, of course, which is why iron technology so rapidly replaced bronze)? What is it about the evidence that leads you to question its credibility?

---

That they knew about the existence of iron deposits is a no brainer. So why should they who knew how to melt metal not melt the iron also? You people claim mankind is scores of thousands of years old. It's rediculous to assume he let all those alleged scores of milleniums pass on without utilizing the abundance of iron available. Even if mankind were once an ape, he would have been evolved into quite an intelligent being a long, long time ago.BTW, I'm sure you've heard the ape's viewpoint on evo, haven't you?It goes something like, "Man descended alright, the onery cuss, but for sure, he never ever descended from us." Hmmm, How can I add that to my signature? I'd like that.

quote:

---

Oh, I don't know, Buzz, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of our brilliance around here.

---

Percy, you're an alright guy. You were kind and honest enough to use the pronoun, our.As for the Brittanica quote, see above for my reasons to reject it's accuracy.

quote:

---

It might help to note at this point that your usual approach is to simply reject evidence presented. But the strength of your position is not measured by the determination with which you defend it, but by your ability to convince others. Without anything but anecdotal evidence this cannot occur. Your beliefs run counter to well established and internally consistent knowledge across a wide variety of fields, including, apparently, history. In essence, you've presented yourself the challenge of disproving much of what we already know.

---

Well, you see, Percy, I've been into studying the Bible in depth since becoming a Christian at age 10, fifty-eight years ago, as well as having watched closely these decades, some remarkable end time prophecies of the Bible being fulfilled and emerging in fulfillment on the world scene, including social and religious life, not to mention the amazing personal experiences I've enjoyed from God, that I cannot simply discard these pillars as worthless falacies simply on the basis of some dating theory which on the surface seems to raise questions concerning things past that have no eye witnesses. For me, rejecting some, I say, some of the dating theory is the prudent thing to do. The fact is that I can't have it both ways. I must reject one or the other. I believe in the end, I will be vindicated and the higher road shall prevail.Always good to talk to you, though we're a good distance apart, ideologically.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 187 by buzsaw, posted 07-10-2003 12:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-11-2003]

I might add that according to the record, only certain ones were ironworkers. Others were herdsmen, musicians and so forth. Likely whomever the Indians of the Americas descended from were not into iron.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

quote:

---

I think it is truly a pity that your religion requires you to choose blind adherence to a particular interpretation of a few chapters in the Christian Bible over the rather unambiguous data collected from nature, right in front of you.

​

Does God really want you to ignore reality? Does God really put more importance upon slavish adherence to a story than your ability to use your own eyes and intellect?

---

My religion if totally voluntary, admonishing me to follow truth. You've read my response to Percy, I would assume. My voluntary adherence to my religion is not blind as I have tried to convey in that post.
Your faith in what mere man says happened millions of years ago based on his fallible unproven processes is much greater than what it takes to look at recorded history, what is happening in modern times and correlate these to Biblical prophecy, as well as present personal experiences which substantiate the existence of God. The latter I can't prove to you, but the prophecies are the evidence you all choose to ignore in your blind adherence to the game of hiding all the flaws and possibilities of error in scores of millions to billions of years where nobody's been to verify.

quote:

---

The Tower of Babel was post-flood, so it isn't relevant to a pre-flood hammer. As I stated earlier, not only is there no evidence of ironwork in your flood era, there is no evidence of ironwork anywhere in the pre-Columbus Americas.

---

The people weren't scattered and dispersed until Babel. Possibly that's when the Americas became inhabited post flood and the Indian nations were possibly not of the ironworking group. I'm not claiming to know. That's why I use the word, "possibly." Neither does anyone else know for sure. [quote] Where is the imperative that if evolution is true your religious experiences are false? I think you've set up a false dichotomy here.[quote] I'm not even suggesting anyone but me should believe my personal experiences, though they are very significant to me, but no excuse for anyone ignoring the prophecies with their remarkable track record. The track record of the prophecies alone lend support to the rest of the record including the Tubal-cain story.As for the bellows technology, it's just not that complicated. Everytime you blow your breath from your mouth bellows to get a fire going hotter, you've demonstrated that simple feat.I'm not being specific because I don't know the specifics. I would imagine some iron ores such as meteor pieces are easily detected as a metal. Likely the ironworkers were near or at sites where iron was easily identified and obtained.

To sumarize my argument in this thread I submit the following:1. Nobody knows the unknowns so far as the elements used in dating go in the timespan of scores of millions to billions of years ago. All scientists can go on is the status quo and what is observed today.2. The Biblical track record for history/prophecy/fulfillment harmony is quite remarkable and lends credence to the rest of the Biblical record.3. If the earth is old and life young, fossils created by sudden catastrophy would be entombed in old material rendering dating methods useless because of the contamination of the new by the old it is entombed in.4. Possibly some unknowns of past milleniums explain the success of harmony in some multiple dating methods because the same unknowns including the supernaturalism factors that affect one method may affect the other methods also causing error in all methods.That's about it for a sumary of my argument and I've not much else to offer.

quote:

---

Seriously, Buzz, if you don't address the points in the replies to you then this isn't a debate.

---

If you don't mind, I'll hang out in the free for all where I can do as many others do, picking and choosing which comments I deem worthy of my time to reply. When you're all alone on a multipage thread against five to ten opponents firing stuff at you rapidfire and you're limited in the time to think, research and reply, with a full time business to run and doing your bookwork in eves, etc, it's just not possible to comply with your regimentation of forum rules in these monitored forums.

quote:

---

There is nothing in the Forum Guidelines regarding how long you take to reply. It is understood that many people have only limited available time. Take as much time as you need, though if you need more than a week you might drop a note to that effect so that people don't think you've abandoned the discussion.

---

But I've a problem with threats of suspension, as I'm not accustomed to rule breaking in anything. It appears from your admonitions I've broken a number of them and I can't deal with that. Then too, I'm thick skinned, but simply don't need these meanspirited insults when I don't consider some posts worth my comment or don't get to others in time to suit the poster. I get bugged about some technical stuff beyond my ability to respond intelligently, so I choose to leave it pass and get all heck for it and now I either respond or I'm breaking rules.In effect one is censored for participation in scientific discussion without an acceptable amount of established cohesive academia thought, or if one resorts to common sense and on occasion the supernatural factor, some of which on occasion collides with naturalistic scientific theory.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-13-2003]

Wi, insolent people like you just don't get it. I'm one person trying to respond to a host of stuff from a host of folks. I was busy on a couple of other threads trying to keep up with what I deemed the most pertinent posts for response with my limited time to post. I'm not highly educated and somewhat of a slow thinker. I may spend a half hour to an hour on some posts, as no doubt some others do. I must resort to research and some search links. If you can't handle that, then please go and talk to someone else.

quote:

---

I'd also like to remind Buz that this is essentially the original question of this thread, and was a response to Buz's claim that all radiometric dating methods were bogus.

---

Please document, if I'm mistaken, but I believe my argument was that if there were a flood, if creation and miracle were involved in causing things to be and if the atmosphere and planet were different a few thousand years ago as implicated in the Bible, nobody would know the chemistry and other data that existed way back when. This is all theory and assumption on the part of scientists today, none of whom have any proof of exactly what things were like millions and billions of years ago. Rather than to argue that the methods were bogus in themselves, the premise of my arguments were that if conditions were different then, a false/bogus reading would be produced by them. I don't intend to get boggled down into this discussion again, but see the need to make this point.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-17-2003]

Thanks Rei. The highest diploma I have is from my old high school, I did attend three semesters at Bob Jones University after high school, but dropped out to help my dad in his business. I've learned much since on my own, but not the bolts n nuts of these dating methods. I see the word "possibility" twice in your post and these possibilities seem to be much of the drive of scientists in some of their theories and assumptions which find their ways into our textbooks and manuals.