Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

Hey Nighttrain, I believe it was Jamesre Ron Wyatt, I don't know where to start ...The "boat shaped object" (where a larger picture shows some 20+ similar objects ...or the anchor\drogue stones ... ... I'd call them "hull beaters"Even christians think he's a fraud.Ron Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation (WAR, W.A.R.)Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You are exactly correct in your post. (I love the amount of detail you put into your posts!)As an archaeologist who does a lot of radiocarbon dating, I have studied the literature extensively to figure out all of the things I need to do to make my dates as accurate as possible (and I have both written a monograph on the subject and delivered a number of papers at professional meetings).Creationists are just the opposite; they want the method to be incorrect, so they misrepresent what the laboratories or the archaeologists or other -ologists do. They misrepresent the facts as often as possible to raise doubts in their readers' minds, all in support of their religious beliefs.Here's another fraud on their part that I documented and blogged elsewhere:

​

Claim:

​

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source

​

​

Analysis:

​

False information due to sloppy research.

​

This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)

​

The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).

​

The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:

​

Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia ” 1680 170. A.D. 270

​

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41 25” N Lat, 74 40” E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.

​

​

What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.

​

The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam . ”

​

But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.

​

The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find “Pennsylvanian” in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.

​

This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.

​

Reference

​

Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323.

=====================I have documented several more of these common creationist "errors," which are repeated so often, are so easily checked, and are so seldom corrected when it is discovered that they are nonsense, that they certainly amount to frauds.These creationist analyses are supposed to document the erroneous nature of radiocarbon dating. What they do instead is show that creation "science" is an oxymoron.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We seen to be very short on input from the other side of the debate.Who was the most recent creationist making fraud accusations?

Peg, Message 362Seeing as no single hoax has been exposed by a creationist ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : peg

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Another one is the falsehoods creationists say about dendrochronology, such as documented on this (closed) thread regarding Don Batten's Tree Ring "study".Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Aren't falsehoods the same thing as lies? Isn't there a commandment about not lying? This is the part about creationists that puzzles me the most.

A lie requires knowledge (of the fact that you are uttering a falsehoods) and intent (to deceive).

Yeah, but with the typical creationist even after you've shown him that he's spouting falsehoods he'd keep spouting the same falsehoods. We know for a fact that they have the knowledge. God knows what intent they have...

Hey Taz, No we don't. We know that they have been given the information. You are dealing with people that don't know what falsehood is, because they only have one test for truth: does it fit inside their black box.See Message 185 and Message 186 for my take on this behavior.You can see examples on that thread.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

That seems like a good candidate for Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims. Mind if I sumbit it to him?Your others might be interesting as well ...

The seal is already there, he just doesn't go into the detail for the C-14 age in the area the seal was found in, so he may want to add it.CD011.4: C-14 age of a sealThe coal one may be there, but I can't find it.Of course this whole list is nothing but a list of creationist falsehoods and fraudulent claimsAn Index to Creationist ClaimsEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : updateEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : sp

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Fine by me. The original blog can be found here:http://blog.darwincentral.org/...%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-ivAt the bottom of that blog are links to five additional blogs in the same series that might also be of interest. Make sure he credits DarwinCentral.org.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Quite true. But that would only excuse the falsehood's utterer of lying. The effects of telling that falsehood will still be the same.Does Christian doctrine condone sinful conduct if the sinner is unaware that it's wrong? Seems to me that the answer is "no" (what with all those sinful newborn babies), but we would need to hear from someone more knowledgeable in the matter.

This 'explains' man's close link to the apes. Seems Islam has more rational explanatory 'evidence' here than do christian YECs..

True, Ned, but seeing that creationists with media access made a fuss about the discovery of the ossuary (ossuaries?)along the lines of it validating Jesus and the Bible, I think it qualifies for a fraud. Wasn`t it archaeologists who exposed the dodgy inscription, leading to the arrest of the forger?Sorry I don`t have headline links. One can only stand so much twaddle. :-)