... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa), 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?, 3) Challenge for Fellow Young Earth Creationists, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")

Video commented on

An Archaeological Moment in Time
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"To each of these societies thriving around the globe so long ago, the world of their grandfathers' grandfathers was already ancient, just as Ecclesiastes described it to be. And on this particular day, Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC., no one alive would have believed that this was the first day, or that the Earth had just been created that morning."

Two points from a Catholic YEC:

1) you have of course misdated all of these societies, unless one of them was pre-Flood (Christ was born 5199 after Creation, and the pre-Flood world lasted longer than 1200 years).

[inserting other combox of mine here, where it fits, as point 1 b:]

From your video, other inaccuracy:

"that the first day of Creation (the day God rested) was Sunday etc."

Actually it was the seventh day of Creation when God rested. And Sunday being first day implies Saturday of ensuing week to be the day when God rested.

The first day was not when He rested, but when He created light, and separated light from darkness and called them night and day.

2) Precisely as societies around the world could not be persuaded Creation had happened this morning (a point you make correctly but misrefer to contemporary with actual creation of the world which again you misdate the Biblical and true version of ... see previous), a society that has been around for one hundred years will not easily believe it has been founded the same morning - refounded is another thing, but not founded.

And one founded this morning will not easily believe it has already been around for a hundred years.

Christians in year 133 obviously believed Christianity had been founded a century earlier, what do you make of that?

[That last question has so far not been answered by AronRa]

ajs1031

Archaeology Excavations : 9,500-Year-Old City Found Underwater Off India
http://archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com/2011/02/9500-year-old-city-found-underwater-off.html

I do believe that that is all that needs to be said about your entire post.

Unless of course you have degrees in History, Physics, and Chemistry, with which to attempt to dispute the facts put forth in that article.

[It is not degrees that dispute, but arguments that do.]

Relevant quote from article (not yet cited in the debate, while writing this):

Debris recovered from the site — including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture, and human bones and teeth — has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old (BBC article). [No indication any other dating technique was used on that find to corroborate the date.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe the city was found. I do not believe it is "9500 year old".

Sweeny Todd

Then corroborate your "two points" with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Earn a fucking Nobel PRIZE for this evidence, and change history.

Or, be content providing armchair commentary on videos like this.

GTFO of here with your YEC bullshit, your Christian Catholic bullshit, and your theology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you overestimate two items in reality:

• how sensational my two points are
• how open the relevant community is to hearing me.

Nobel Prize committee and "peer reviewed journals" (when we talk prepublication peer review) have about your attitude to what you call bullshit. Meaning if the blockade ceased, I would not even be sensational.

My one claim of being so on this item is not making the points, but doing it HERE, so you get a chance of peer reviewing me (when we talk post-publication peer review).

Sweeny Todd

Your entire blabbering literally made no sense.

Do you have scientific evidence to counter the claims made in the video (i.e.: to support your two counter points), yes or no?

If YES, then submit it for peer-review and (quite possibly) earn some recognition.

If NO, then GTFO. Claims made as fact require evidence, not mere assertion.

Any other comments that do not start with YES or NO will require me to mute the post and report you as spam. Furthermore, I'll just block you because you literally are making no sense, like English wasn't your first language.

[English is not my first language, but I am not grammatically faulty. I am old fashioned, at least by a few decades, since that is where some of my favourite English authors are from – but his real problem is with what I am saying, not a linguistic one, I would say.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point is that AronRa LACKS scientific evidence for the claims HE makes. He is getting fame and recognition by a community which will not give me that, because I am to honest about Carbon 14.

Here is anyway Tas Walker - a scientist as in a geologist (trained by old age believers, as he was himself) and converted to young earth, and using his knowledge that way - without getting recognition from the community you implied either:

BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/preliminary-age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period/

Sweeny Todd

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Evidence" from a biblical blog?

That's about as credible as a pedophile listing Michael Jackson as a reference to corroborate that he's a good person (if he were still alive).

Your utter lack of scientific understanding is not only astounding, but pathetic. What is there to be "honest" about with regard to C14? Here, allow me to provide scientific evidence showing that C14 is only supposed to be used on organic compounds, namely vegetation:

Welcome to the K12 section of the Radiocarbon WEBinfo site
http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

With regard to creation scientists retards using this dating method for rocks and non organic samples:

"Samples of rock are not able to be dated using radiocarbon, because rocks contain no organic carbon from living organisms that are of recent enough age."

Specifically, read the section titled " How do you know that radiocarbon really works? ".

More resources to educate your scientific-illiterate mind:

howstuffworks : How Carbon-14 Dating Works by Marshall Brain
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

University of Oxford : Radiocarbon Web-Info : Radiocarbon Calibration
http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html

(and quite possibly the one that blows all creation scientist retard objections out of the water)

NCSE : Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
[the one I was then quoting]
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Read up and digest this knowledge (should take no more than two or three days), then reply back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is also GEOLOGICAL, before answering the rest. (The blog I mean)

Where exactly did you get it from that Tas Walker, a trained geologian and well read up on fossil / archaeological issues too ever tried to date NON-organic material with radio-carbon?

Some rocks are in principle datable by radio-carbon by the fact of containing recisely organic material. Not just vegetables, but also bones.

The article is about glaciation, and from it we do not only have moraines, but also human bones and artefacts.

ajs1031

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Carbon dating items without carbon in them would be precisely as useful as using a can of gasoline to start a nuclear reactor.

That's why Radiometric Dating uses dozens of other isotopes to determine it's results.

[Missed this while answering "Sweeney Todd"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From one of your [Sweeney Todd’s] links [the one he recommended as nec plus ultra]:

Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. ... [I stop right there.]

How reliable is the sequence of bristle-cone pines? Are there any bottle-necks with very few overlapping?

Here is one link to my musings on the matter:

Creation vs. Evolution : Why so shy about creationist pov on C14?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-so-shy-about-creationist-pov-on-c14.html

I think there might still somewhere be another one with a link to a bottle-neck of very few and even very bad overlaps.

Sweeny Todd

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So, you admit to stopping once your cognitive dissonance kicks in? Great! This proves that you have no appreciation for science or the scientific method.

And I refuse to read your "musings", unless you have the credentials to make them in the first place (i.e.: you have a doctorate in some STEM field from an accredited university, or you've lectured and debated extensively in public on the matter, and are reputable).

Unless you can show those credentials, I have no more reason to read your blog than a creation science retard blog.

Again, actually READ and DIGEST the information I've provided, and do your own scholarly research, which should take now about a WEEK at least a couple of days to do, then get back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So, you admit to stopping once your cognitive dissonance kicks in?"

I did not stop reading. I stopped quoting.

"And I refuse to read your "musings", unless you have the credentials to make them in the first place"

You are reading my musings on these comments.

One needs no credentials to muse. One only needs them to lecture, and to do certain official kinds of debate, like that when someone getting his credentials is debated with and debating to show his mettle in that area. Beyond that (but lecturing is a great bread winning avenue, so it is big enough just for that) one does not need credentials to be doing science.

I am however not taking any "read and digest before you answer" from you.

I read the whole relevant passage before quoting part of it. I digested it in five seconds, that the real point is whether C14 calibration has been confirmed by bristle-cone remanants sufficiently surely dated with treerings.

What I have read about treerings is there are certain bottlenecks and there are very imperfect overlaps - and I read it in the kind of sources which you consider as having credentials. Not in creationist ones, though often enough these writers also have the kind of credentials you ask for.

Btw, AronRa hasn't a Ph. D., his credentials are - at least this was the case last time I heard of it - on a student level.

+ajs1031
"Carbon dating items without carbon in them would be precisely as useful as using a can of gasoline to start a nuclear reactor."

Sure, dude! WHO exactly denied that?

Someone accused either me or Tas Walker of having done so and without checking, you believe that accusation.

I did not deny carbon atoms are needed to do carbon 14. Tas Walker did not deny it either.

"That's why Radiometric Dating uses dozens of other isotopes to determine it's results."

Not on same tested items.

A piece of lava may be very useful for potassium argon dating (but it is quite another question whether potassium argon dating is even half as useful as even flawed carbon 14), but it cannot be used for carbon 14.

A bone is useful for carbon 14, but totally useless for potassium argon dating - fortunately that means nothing, since potassium argon dating - as tested! - is worthless anyway.

As corroborated by the New Zealand volcano example:

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

That means, if a bone has too much carbon 14 in it to be from earlier than 40.000 years ago, but has above it lava with a potassium argon date for 2 million years ago, normally one should give the carbon 14 date precedence, and the alternative calibration curve by Tas Walker as linked to above would be very interesting BUT if the evolutionist/uniformitarian community starts doing the potassium argon test, they will conclude there is no reason to test the bone for carbon 14 and so they will miss the test.

ajs1031

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
LOL, Creation dot com. Why don't you just pull your facts out of your own ass, instead of digging for them in the asses of scientifically illiterate buffoons like those, who's ONLY truth is " Send us money so we can lie to you some more".

Sorry, I'm done with you. If that's where you get your "facts", you're not worth my time, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Scientifically illiterate is just not true.

You seem to be if instead of giving some back up for potassium argon against this attack you make an ad hominem.

As it happens, the CMI article knows how to cite (look up the footnotes before doubting the facts):

Ian McDougall, H. A. Polach and J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.33. 1969, pp. 1485-1520.

ajs1031

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You might want to research those references just slightly. The article referred to was published in 1969.

Ian McDougall, H. A. Polach and J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.33. 1969, pp. 1485-1520.

You do understand that these sciences were barely in their infancy at that point? You do get how 45 year old, and long proven wrong, science is NOT a reliable source, right?

This is why Creation Dot Com is a site no one in the scientific community really pays any attention to.

Reply or not, I don't care. Goodbye.

Sweeny Todd

+ajs1031 Good call, bro. I think +Hans-Georg Lundahl is just a narrow-minded creationist troll.

While I do not advocate "giving up" the dialogue with such people, I personally have neither the time nor the inclination to explain or show the vast scientific evidence--which is freely available, albeit not without a bit of work--in support of not only the validity of C-14 dating, but also other dating methods (no, I do not mean eHarmony either). If these methods were not valid, the scientific community WOULD HAVE ABANDONED THEM LONG AGO. Until someone, be it a creation advocate or real scientist, provides valid, scientific, peer-reviewable evidence showing that all known radiometric dating methods are invalid for each and every thing for which they are respectively intended to be used, then science will continue to use them. Period. End of story. No further debate is needed on these matters. I suggest that +Hans-Georg Lundahl find such evidence, submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and earn a fucking Nobel Prize for his findings. It would literally change the world.

Furthermore, quote mining or otherwise blatantly misrepresenting the facts (a tactic well known to be used by creation scientists retards suffering from cognitive dissonance) is dishonest and has no place in true science. Such people who regurgitate these things are not innocent because they are blindly accepting the misinformation as correct instead of doing the research for themselves.

So, in short, I, too, will be leaving this thread.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+ajs1031 "You do get how 45 year old, and long proven wrong, science is NOT a reliable source, right?"

• 45 year old science is not reliable?
• science proven long is not reliable?
• a science in its infancy is not reliable?

If a piece of science from today won't be reliable in 45 years, why bother?

Science proven wrong is not reliable, but the problem is it is precisely the potassium argon science that was proven wrong.

Plus, if the science quoted had been proven wrong, why did you not offer what had been since proven right? Do you have a calibration of potassium argon datings that is reliable in relation to known historic eruptions and lava known to come from latest eruption, for instance?

Tas Walker seems to think that is not so. Before calling him a fraud how about showing the scientist and articles in that particular field (reliability of potassium argon as tested on datable eruptions) that are not frauds in your book?

And a science in its infancy is not reliable? No, not if it starts out wrong, no.

Arithmetic in its infancy presumably got 2+2=4, exactly as we do now. Metallurgy presumably discovered that forming metals involved either beating or heating or both in combination, and that pretty fast. I have trouble imagining earliest weavers did not get that a thread being inserted must be over some and under some, over some and under some, and not over and under same threads every time it is insterted. It seems it is only modern pseudoscience that has a science in its infancy is unreliable.

But if it was in its infancy 45 years ago, why should we presume it is mature now?

+Sweeny Todd "If these methods were not valid, the scientific community WOULD HAVE ABANDONED THEM LONG AGO."

Carbon 14 has a limited validity, due to later times getting a carbon 14 level in atmosphere close to the present one.

This has been recognised by the creationist community.

Potassium Argon has not been recognised by the creation scientists. And evolutionists have a very steady interest in keeping up belief in it.

"that all known radiometric dating methods are invalid for each and every thing for which they are respectively intended to be used"

This is not what we are saying of carbon 14. But Tas Walker provides another calibration curve for it than you use.

As for potassium argon, I do not know one example where it is known to be valid. You can say it is not meant to be used on recent eruptions. But even if not, you could hardly expect these to give so high ages if it was valid every time it gave so high ages, like Laetoli in some layers between footprints and surface.

"No further debate is needed on these matters."

Or even very welcome, from your side, I might presume? I am providing it, with or without your thanks.

"I suggest that +Hans-Georg Lundahl find such evidence, submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and earn a fucking Nobel Prize for his findings. It would literally change the world."

My finding it is very banal. I only have to be broadminded enough to read creationist material.

But changing the world takes more than my finding it. Or even submitting it. It also takes the reputable peer reviewed journal being not too narrowminded like you are!

This here could have changed the word if published broadly, and I did submit it to the relevant sub-set of Nature:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Was it published? No. Who did the pre-publishing review? If it went any way, beyond a narrowminded evolutionist in office, I woldn't be surprised it went to P. Z. Myers, whom I had refuted. That is how your community and your media work.