Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 106 of 207 (502183)
03-10-2009 9:16 AM


Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
For some reason Kelly is unwilling to argue her position on the basis of any real-world evidence, so I'm going to try to take up the gauntlet for her.
This paper by Andrew Snelling of ICR seems particularly condemnatory of the reliability of radiometric dating:
Over the past decade or so Andrew Snelling has identified a number of organic samples that date anomalously young. His method is to take fossil wood that is encased in ancient layers and subject them to radiocarbon dating. His findings indicate that while the geologic layers date very ancient, millions of years old, the encased fossil wood dates much younger, only some tens of thousands of years old. He concludes that all methods of radiometric dating are unreliable.
Snelling painstakingly describes the sample preparation process and is able to rule out all possible sources of error, eliminating each one. The careful sample preparation process rules out all possible sources of contamination, both in the field and in the lab. Therefore the radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate, and since it contradicts the Ar/Ar dating of the encasing geologic layer, radiometric dating is unreliable. The results are instead consistent with an age of the earth of only some thousands of years, and with a global flood around 4300 years ago.
Let's argue this on the merits. Let the data, methods and analytic techniques employed by Snelling speak for themselves.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 116 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:30 AM Percy has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 107 of 207 (502192)
03-10-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Blue Jay
03-10-2009 1:36 AM


Re: "A process was involved!"
I'm confused by this statement. As an evolutionary biologist, I spend a large portion of my time trying to figure out the "how" of evolution in the vertical sense. I particularly study the way spiders develop dietary specializations to improve their metabolic efficiency and minimize competitive interactions between species, which ultimately drives the entire spider community toward higher diversity and productivity.
I am referng to origins. How did life begin in evolutionary theory? What mechanism caused life to suddenly appear? From what I have seen evolutionists are quick to say that they don't address origins. Even Darwin's "Origins of Species" did not really address origins. What could you say? Evolution in the vertical sense- that is, "macroevolution," transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism. This idea can take us all the way back to the very begining, to the primordial soup of life's earliest moments and hints at origins, but never really addresses it completely. When creationists claim that they have no problem with evolution in the horizontal sense, e.g.., the different variations of dogs, we hear that that is all evolution is really about--studying how life proceeds, the processes involved in the continuation of life. Horizontal variations (microevolution) is of course not really evolution at all, nor are mutations. When it comes to macroevolution, a process that has never been observed to occur, it should not be called scientific.
Creationists are not trying to prove God or how God created because that is beyond the scope of our reach in the same way it is impossible for you to actually observe or see how life might have begun through a random process of time and chance--which is the underlying model of macroevolution--even if you won't admit it. Otherwise, there would have to be some acknowledgement that a creator had to cause life. Certainly you can fall back on the idea that a Creator caused life through a process of evolution but does the evidence really prove such a thing? That is the heart of the debate and disagreement between evolutionists and creationists.
Creationists do not believe that the evidence reveals a process of evolution in the vertical sense. Creationists believe that the evidence supports the idea that such creative processes that started life are no longer continuing today. Everything has been created and life simply exists within the structure of its particular design. Humans were always humans, dogs always dogs and even your spiders have changed very little since the time of their creation.
You are among those who simply want to misrepresent what Creation Science is all about. They have more than just unspecified ideas, quite a bit more. There are scores of physical evidences that the earth is not nearly as old as the evolutionist claims for example. These evidences are well documented in creationist literature. Some of these include the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the buildup of atmospheric radiocarbon, the efflux of helium into the atmosphere, the influx of uranium, nickel, and other chemical elements and ions into the ocean, the break up of comets, the influx of comic dust, and many others all indicating (even with the uniformitarian assumptions) that the earth is certainly not as old as you hope. But you don't want the creationist to bring these things up. You want them silenced. I would think that if you were so sure of yourself, that you would rather enjoy the challenge and put this debate to rest. But instead, all that you can do is try to discredit the validity of the science by attacking it as a religion in disguise, which is totally disingenuous. When I say "you," I am not refering to you personally : )
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2009 1:36 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2009 10:59 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2009 4:20 AM Kelly has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 108 of 207 (502194)
03-10-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Re: I just wanted to correct the misconception
My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results.
But this is simply not the case: you have been unable demonstrate this by your refusal to support your assertion with any examples.
Your position is that creation science is no diiferent from science but your refusal to show (with examples of a creationsit scientic peer revied article) that this is the case prevents anyone from being swayed to your position.
I've been reading both these threads and would be willing to see your point (as I'm sure other on this site would be) if you could give me some reason to.
I'm sure many creationist on this site would be as fascinated as I would be to see a creationist piece of peer reviewed research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 109 of 207 (502198)
03-10-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-10-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
I am glad to see that you at least recognize that scientific study and inquiry were used by this creationist and that you want to look at it based on scientific merits. Knock yourself out and explain in scientific terms why these examples and explanations are wrong if you want to. Remeber that i am just happy that you would come this far.
Here is another example of a similar study:
An excerpt: Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in Ancient Sandstone | Answers in Genesis
Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225—230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.
The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX—23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.
The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of —24.0 . This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225—230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged timea few tens of thousands of years.
Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.
Conclusions
This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225—230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.
Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 9:16 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2009 10:42 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2009 10:53 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 1:18 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 110 of 207 (502203)
03-10-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
03-09-2009 8:31 PM


Not ignoring anything Percy,
You have to remember what my original "assertion" is in the first place and stop trying to drag me into a scientific debate on some subject matter of your choosing and something that I am not really interested in debating.
Remember that whether or not any of these studies (whatever the subject matter) are right or wrong has no bearing on the fact that they are scientific studies. That's my point. I believe I have provided plenty of examples as to what Creation Science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 8:31 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2009 12:33 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2009 3:58 PM Kelly has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 111 of 207 (502207)
03-10-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
I am glad to see that you at least recognize that scientific study and inquiry were used by this creationist and that you want to look at it based on scientific merits. Knock yourself out and explain in scientific terms why these examples and explanations are wrong if you want to. Remeber that i am just happy that you would come this far.
Since we're being patronising, allow me to congratulate you on your promotion. You've gone from bare assertions to posting about long refuted pseudoscience - this is a good firm step in a creationist lifecycle. Glad to see you arrive finally.
Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225—230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged timea few tens of thousands of years.
Can you explain exactly why it would be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age? You probably can't. Radiometric dating is something you have to be careful with, and the nearest analogy I can come up with is as follows.
Imagine you have a 1 metre ruler. I ask you to measure something that is 50cm long. You do that no problem. Then I ask you to measure something that is about 50m long. Your ruler isn't long enough. All plop your ruler down, and the thing you are measuring definitely goes all the way to the end. Without being able to see beyond the edge of the ruler, you would say that the ruler method gives a result of 1 metre.
What is the limit of radiocarbon dating? It depends on the lab and the equipment etc, but it usually ranges from 25-50,000 years. After that point, your answer is just going to be basically meaningless.
For an amusing ten minute video that expands upon this, take a look at this video. It covers other creationist 'science' surrounding this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Kelly has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 112 of 207 (502209)
03-10-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
You've already been given one reason why this isn't good science (it is arguable that it is science).
They have not taken into account all known processes. C14 can be formed in situ if the material is near radioactive ores. Interestingly this can create amounts enough to bring measured age within the most extreme limits of carbon dating.
Unless this is accounted for the results can not be taken as you source suggests.
Fortunately people who actually know how to use carbon dating aren't so foolish as those of your source. They do not attempt to use it when it is out of it's range of applicability. Doing so it, at best, bad science, and, at worst not science at all but rather is dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 11:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 113 of 207 (502211)
03-10-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Kelly
03-10-2009 9:38 AM


In the Beginning...
Hi, Kelly.
Kelly writes:
Creationists are not trying to prove God or how God created because that is beyond the scope of our reach in the same way it is impossible for you to actually observe or see how life might have begun through a random process of time and chance--which is the underlying model of macroevolution--even if you won't admit it.
So, when I was getting ready to go to grad school, I applied to four schools. In one school, nobody wanted me in their lab, so I halted the application procedure early on. In another school, somebody wanted me in his lab, but, due to timing issues related to his funding, we missed some deadlines in the application procedure, and that fell through.
Finally, I narrowed it down to two schools, both of which ultimately offered me a position. I selected the school that had a more interesting research project in line, more money, and more opportunities to attend conferences and other events.
Do you know what I just did?
I just told you a true, meaningful (if perhaps a bit dull) story without once referring to the circumstances of my birth.
In the same way, I can tell you a true, meaningful story about how tetrapods evolved from fish without once referring to the origin of all life on earth. Likewise, I can tell you a true, meaningful story about how spiders adapt to their environment without once referring to the origin of all life on earth.
Can you do the same with creation science?
You cannot. Therefore, your story must incorporate the beginning. Evolution does not experience this constraint.
Sorry.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 9:38 AM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 114 of 207 (502213)
03-10-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by NosyNed
03-10-2009 10:53 AM


This is all arguable, debatable
and beyond my point of contention--which is that creation science is not a study of God, how God created or of religion, but a study on the merits of scientific methods, data and study, even if you disagree with their findings.
And to Bluejay,
I am adding this response to this post for you because I am on my way out and can't wait the fifteen minute time control I am under by the moderators..
But yes, creationists can absolutely study the evidence for signs of creation and design without having to get involved in proving a Creator or "how" he created.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2009 10:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:04 PM Kelly has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 207 (502217)
03-10-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-10-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
This paper by Andrew Snelling of ICR seems particularly condemnatory of the reliability of radiometric dating:
That's too easy.
A good look at Snelling's claims can be found in the following:
The sample wasn't wood at all. It was an iron concretion with contamination.
This is typical though of the creation "science" approach to radiocarbon dating: look for any sample that gives an apparently anomalous age, ignore tens of thousands of other samples, and loudly crow to your fellow believers that you have proof of a young earth. Ignore anyone who points out where you went wrong. Oh, and avoid the peer-reviewed technical journals like the plague.
Here's another such error found all over the internet: Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. The original source for this false claims 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).
If you research this back to the original article in Radiocarbon you find the error comes from 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.
But the term coal in place of charcoal was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationist authors and webmasters 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. Again, typical of creation "science" that finds the answers it seeks and steadfastly refuses to correct its errors.
I have a lot more such examples but I think we need to hear from Kelly why she thinks radiocarbon dating is inaccurate. But I doubt that we'll hear anything but a repeat of the original claim. From her posts, it doesn't appear that Kelly sees any need to back up her statements with supporting documentation. I guess we're supposed to fall all over ourselves agreeing with her because of the righteousness of her belief. (Sorry, real science doesn't work that way.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 1:55 PM Coyote has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 116 of 207 (502219)
03-10-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-10-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Percy writes:
Therefore the radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate, and since it contradicts the Ar/Ar dating of the encasing geologic layer, radiometric dating is unreliable. The results are instead consistent with an age of the earth of only some thousands of years, and with a global flood around 4300 years ago.
I don't understand this.
First a clarifying question:
Are Ar/Ar and radiocarbon both "radiometric" dating methods?
If Yes:
"The results are instead consistent with an age of the earth of only some thousands of years, and with a global flood around 4300 years ago."
...would be meaningless since the conclusion is that all radiometric dating is unreliable, which is where "the results" would be coming from, no?
How can the "radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate" be true if we are concluding that "all radiometric dating is unreliable?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:46 AM Stile has replied
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 2:05 PM Stile has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 117 of 207 (502221)
03-10-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Stile
03-10-2009 11:30 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
One typical creation "science" response to old radiocarbon dates is to make up some reason whereby all dates older than about 4,000 year or so are incorrect due to some effect of the global flood. Thus, a date of 40,000 years would be "corrected" because of some flood effect, and would come out about 4,000-4,500 years instead.
Complete nonsense, of course, but typical of creation "science."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:30 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 12:01 PM Coyote has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 118 of 207 (502226)
03-10-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coyote
03-10-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Coyote writes:
One typical creation "science" response to old radiocarbon dates is to make up some reason whereby all dates older than about 4,000 year or so are incorrect due to some effect of the global flood.
I think I understand.
So, they're trying to say that the radiocarbon date "must be correct" in the sense that it's method was flawless... however, since it's date is, um... "obviously larger than the age of the earth" (!?!)... then we must conclude that the correct-method of radiocarbon dating only pruduces unreliable results.
I see.
Yes, that contains its own circular sillyness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:46 AM Coyote has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 119 of 207 (502232)
03-10-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Not ignoring anything Percy,
You have to remember what my original "assertion" is in the first place and stop trying to drag me into a scientific debate on some subject matter of your choosing and something that I am not really interested in debating.
But in insisting that we must read Morris and Parker's What is Creation Science? in order to discuss anything with you, you have opened yourself up to scientific debate on subject matter that is contained in that book. True, some are jumping the gun a wee bit, but that book does indeed contain many standard creationist false claims so touching on them in advance isn't unreasonable.
Besides, what they are doing is what you should have been doing all along: presenting actual "creation science" research. We're all doing your work for you and all you can do is bitch and moan about it? It's your assertion, so support it already!
And it's not our fault that that actual "creation science" research is so shoddy; it's the creationists' fault. Buck up and take some responsibility! It's your position so you need to support it! And if you won't hold to your position, then denounce it!
But rest assured that when our copies arrive, there will be a topic devoted to examining the claims in that book. Your active participation and contributions in that future topic are fully expected.
OBTW, how far have you gotten with reading Chapter Three of Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. Until you have read it, you cannot raise any probability claims.
Here's another example of "creation science" research, this one performed by Dr. Henry Morris. In his book, Scientific Creationism, on page 152 of the 2nd edition (the current one), Morris repeats his "meteoritic" dust on the moon claim (based on his misrepresentation of an old Scientific American article) and bolsters it in a footnote by citing a "1976" NASA document, "well into the space age" (the standard intonation whenever this document is refered to, as he did in a debate I attended in his response to criticism that creationists use out-of-date sources).
Here's the problem. In that footnote, he gives that NASA document as his primary source, but it isn't. His real primary source was Harold Slusher, the same source for that table of "uniformitarian estimates -- age of the earth" in your book starting at page 288; it's number 36 in the list. Morris have never seen that NASA document, let alone use it as a source. For that matter, I very much doubt that Slusher had ever seen it. Because that document, cited as
quote:
Meteor Orbits and Dust (NASA SP-135, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Vol. 2, 1976)
is actually
quote:
Meteor Orbits and Dust (NASA SP-135, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Vol. 11, Aug 1965, printed 1967)
How do I know that Morris had never even looked at that document? Because when I pulled it off our university library shelf, the very first thing I saw was the 1965 date and that the volume number was eleven and not two (in Slusher's letter that the ICR sent me when I first inquired about Morris' claim at that debate, Slusher had written in as a Roman numeral II, even though the font on the document's cover clearly reads 11).
Dr. Henry Morris claimed that that NASA document was his primary source. It wasn't, not by a long shot. He lied. Two researchers, Thomas Wheeler and Frank Lovell, corresponded with Morris while his partner, Dr. Duane Gish, corresponded with me. In both sets of exchanges, both men first provided us with Slusher's letter in which he gives his calculations, we found those calculations to be in great error since they both misrepresent their purported source and they include factors that make no mathmatical sense, we also found the original document and immediately noticed the gross error in the citation date, we informed both men of our findings, both men ignored our findings at first and then refused to correspond any further on the matter. Gish was a bit more abrupt, while Morris promised that it would be corrected in future editions of the book (of which there have been none -- they still sell that same incorrect edition as if it's the latest thing; this all went down in the mid 1980's). Both men admitted that they don't check their references; Gish even started whining that they can't afford to since they don't get any grant money -- how would that prevent you from going to the university library and pulling the document off the shelf?
So there you have it. They lie about their sources. And if we can so easily catch them lying about the little things that we can check, how are we to trust them with the bigger things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:34 AM Kelly has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 120 of 207 (502234)
03-10-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kelly
03-09-2009 5:35 PM


You continue to use arguments you have been shown to be false
How many times are you going to continue using this when you ahve been told time and time agian that it is not true.
-especially considering the second law.
Your signature should be
Don't confuse me with the facts my mind is made up
Edited by Theodoric, : Hope this is better, should not let frustration get to me

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 5:35 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AdminModulous, posted 03-10-2009 12:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024