Re: admans Carbondating paradox.
spintronic
saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
Come close, I'll tell you a story.
In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
Both were wrong.
Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
Now, this is not hard.
2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
Forgive my skepticism.
conrad
Let's for the moment give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume everything you have said in your post
is accurate. Then, this does not preclude that
someone botched the test. Your unstated assumption
is that the dating was conducted without error.
What evidence then, do you have, to suggest that
that was the case?
--
conrad
Boikat
No. Even a basic understanding of *any* form of isotopic dating is
understood to be based upon the statistics of the decay rates. That
is why there is that little "+/-" thingy.
>
> Forgive my skepticism.
And mine. I know you can provide a citation for this claim, right?
Or are you going to refuse to, like your pet troll, adman?
Boikat
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Given the *huge* number of "errors" I uncovered in the
genome database.
What evidence do you present that your dates arrived at
by radiometric dating methods contain "none or few" errors?
Boikat
PS, If anyone is saying that C14 dating is accurate over *millions* of
years, they are incorrect. Are you lumping other radiometric dating
in with carbon dating in that claim?
Boikat
Cerpin Taxt
>
> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
Did somebody state this?
Citation please.
TomS
<c2085bbf-a100-4fae...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, conrad
stated..."
>
>On Oct 12, 8:50=A0am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>>
>> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>>
>> In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>>
>> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>>
>> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>>
>> 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>>
>> Both were wrong.
>>
>> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>>
>> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
>> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>>
>> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>>
>> Now, this is not hard.
>>
>>
>> 2003 - ~1965 =3D 38 years. ~ =A0Actual age.
>>
>> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>>
>> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>>
>> Forgive my skepticism.
>
>Let's for the moment give you the benefit of the doubt
>and assume everything you have said in your post
>is accurate. Then, this does not preclude that
>someone botched the test. Your unstated assumption
>is that the dating was conducted without error.
>What evidence then, do you have, to suggest that
>that was the case?
>
I have some reservations about this story.
Why would someone do isotope dating on the body of a recent
death? What does the DNA testing have to do with giving a
date? What is the evidence for the story that the baby and
the woman were sisters, and that it had "really" died in
the 1960s?
The story is fragmentary to the point of being incoherent.
It has no references where we can check out the details.
It has the appearance of being an "urban legend".
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Boikat
> "On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
That's what it sounds like to me too: Something someone made up.
Your post beat my post, ;)
Boikat
Boikat
PPS, A quick skim of that thread you cited, I did not see anyone
claiming that C14 dating was accurate "even upto millions of years".
Could you please post a link to that message so I can point and laugh?
Boikat
Mark Evans
So the DNA test is in accurate because it established a close relation
between 2 siblings? The mother/daughter relationship assumption
sounds like a quick & dirty decision by local police.
Carbon dating is not accurate over millions of years. Nor is it that
accurate for very recent (a few years) dates. Sort of like trying to
measure a fraction of an inch or a mile with a yardstick marked only
in inches.
BTW, how did you get the date of the mother's menopause? It is a
process, not an event and it does not uniformly occur at the same age
in every woman. I have several cousins who were born after their
mother's "change".
Mark Evans
spintronic
> "On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
So, what "would" you say if it was true?
Boikat
PPPS. Who in their right mind would carbon date a body of obvious
recent origin? I tink, untill you provide a citation, that you either
made up the story, or your source made it up, and you did not question
it.
Also, IIRC, post 1945 C14 dating for *anything* recent, is screwed up
due to atomic bomb tests and other events, like Chernobyl
Boikat
spintronic
So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
myth? Just to be clear.
Funny, John & Weirdo discarded loads of sequences (without evidence)
in another thread.
Weird how you lot discound evidence when it suites you.
Hypatia
news:b9d570e1-29a3-4afd-9ffc-31ec3d0b6472@j6
>
>> It has the appearance of being an "urban legend".
>
> That's what it sounds like to me too: Something someone made up.
The basic story is a real one...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/couple-held-over-death-of-baby-girl-encased-in-concrete-574882.html
I suspect the gibberish starts with sAdman's 'science'...
H.
Mike Dworetsky
news:a50f7f8b-a673-4b1a...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I read several news items about the case and nowhere do I see any mention of
the methods used to estimate the age of the concrete as 10-15 years.
Another item says the DNA implied the woman was the baby's sister or mother.
Later it was refined enough to suggest they were sisters and had the same
parents.
So on what authority do you conclude it was dated by isotope dating? I'm
wondering if all they had to go on was the memory of local folk about how
long the block had been there.
It could not have been by carbon dating, because it is well known that no
material since about 200 years ago can be accurately dated owing to the
amount of fossil fuel burnt. In fact I doubt if any radiometric analysis
was used to find the date. Maybe it was by chemical analysis, perhaps based
on the physical/chemical state of the concrete. For example, they
determined that it was from a local factory source, not from somewhere far
away, but they did not give details.
So you made a claim and I am skeptical about it. Produce the evidence
please.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Hypatia
Prof Weird
That were easily determined to be errors. And thus easily accounted
for and compensated for by people that actually knew what they were
talking about. So far, you have yet to reach Woodmorappe's level of
relevance.
What 'huge' number of errors ? And even if there were a 'huge' number
of errors in the DNA databases, of what relevance would that be to
radiocarbon dating ? Makes as much sense as saying 'since there be
many errors in 3rd grade quizzes, da bible must be wrong !!1!1!!'
> What evidence do you present that your dates arrived at
> by radiometric dating methods contain "none or few" errors ?
C14 isn't accurate over short or long ages : for short ages,
insufficient decay has happened, and the error bars can be larger than
the actual age. For ages <1000 years, usually round to the nearest
10, with an error of +/- 5 years. Not sure why anyone would use C14
on samples so young (as in the 'story' you 'reported').
C14 rarely used on anything older than 50,000 years - in this case, so
little remains that background swamps out the signal. So anyone
EXPECTING C14 to be '100% accurate over millions of years' is severely
off his/her rocker.
C14 can read YOUNGER by recent contamination - a few young bacteria on
the sample can throw it off (thus most competent researchers know
enough to PROPERLY CLEAN the samples before trying to radiodate them).
And why do you 'claim' there was something wrong with the DNA test -
it would indeed show that the baby and the woman were closely
related. And, since the baby and the woman were sisters, I fail to
see the 'problem' with DNA that you are insinuating.
But, then again, you are the twit claiming that genes (and
chromosomes) leap about the animal kingdom willy-nilly, making it
impossible to generate a consistent phylogeny for anything.
But you're not really interested in anything but being an annoying
prick, are you ?
r norman
In particular, there was an enormous spike in atmospheric 14C between
1960 and 1965. Anybody who naively performs a carbon dating test on a
sample from that period would get a far more recent date without
correcting for the known variation in 14C levels. And anybody with
any experience in performing carbon dating would touch such a
situation.
chris thompson
So who did the isotope dating- IRC or AIG?
Chris
Prof Weird
WRONG, simpleton - your 'data' was discarded because it was obviously
in error.
Like your 'fruit fly sequences in a sea urchin cDNA pool' fiasco.
Or that 57 base sequence that was in many organisms and turned out to
be the polylinker of the cloning vector lambda FIX II (in other words,
vector sequence)
Or vomiting up highly conserved genes and acting surprised they were
so similar.
Or finding one chimeric clone from a mouse cDNA (sequence is actually
pG5luc XhoI/Bam HI fragment ligated to mouse cDNA) out of thousands of
clones.
You have demonstrated that you are quite good at rummaging through
garbage, fixating on noise and eating dung. Now try doing something
useful besides being an annoying, self-absorbed bellicose troll.
> Weird how you lot discound evidence when it suites you.
No, twit - sane and rational people discount BLATANT ERRORS AND
MISTAKES.
You, being neither sane nor rational, fixate on it as if it supports
your ludicrous notion that chromosomes leap about the animal kingdom,
scrambling all possible phylogenies beyond use.
spintronic
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b9d570e1-29a3-4afd-9ffc-31ec3d0b6472@j6
>
>
>
> >> It has the appearance of being an "urban legend".
>
> > That's what it sounds like to me too: Something someone made up.
>
>
> I suspect the gibberish starts with sAdman's 'science'...
>
> H.
2004 before the case was solved. Try again.
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 9:50 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Carbon dating is not accurate over millions of years. Nor is it that
> accurate for very recent (a few years) dates. Sort of like trying to
> measure a fraction of an inch or a mile with a yardstick marked only
> in inches.
Or the world with a stick? It is possible.
spintronic
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> So on what authority do you conclude it was dated by isotope dating?
Don't ask me. ask Stuart.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/s-black.asp
spintronic
It's been a long time since I perused this case.
But from what I remember, they tried to date it from DNA decay rates.
Boikat
Read again what I said, fuctard Jr. Until you support it, I doubt the
claim. As pointed out, there are aspects that do not hold water on
the face of it, such as using C14 on what little information you
provided, would have obviously been a recent corpse. The fact that
you bought into the garbage is due to your ignorance of radiometric
dating of *any* kind.
>
> Funny, John & Weirdo discarded loads of sequences (without evidence)
> in another thread.
>
> Weird how you lot discound evidence when it suites you.
Oh, now that would be your pet troll, adman. FYI, your assertion
without supporting *evidence* is not evidence.
Boikat
Boikat
DNA decay is not C14 dating, fool.
Boikat
(M)-adman
You guys always have an excuse when you are BUSTED with your own science.
And you can always blame it on human error when all else fails.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Mike Dworetsky
http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/s-black.asp
So was it a personal conversation with him, or something you read? I see
one paper on the use of the C-14 atomic testing pulse as a way of dating
bones from the 20th century but I'm not sure if it can be used precisely in
a case like this.
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
> > myth? Just to be clear.
>
> Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
2) I read it. I was right.
> Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
And I care why?
> As pointed out, there are aspects that do not hold water on
> the face of it, such as using C14
Who ever said C14?
Like I said. You should read.
<snip> It was a human being, not a "corpse".
> The fact that you bought into the garbage is due to your ignorance of radiometric
> dating of *any* kind.
All I can say is you *utter stupid fucking bafoon*!
You may have a ppoint, if this was false.
As it is, you now look twice the idiot you did when you woke up.
Mike Dworetsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeat after me: DNA decay rates are not the same as carbon dating.
spintronic
Whoever said that?
You are hallucinating again. Stay off the drugs moron.
(M)-adman
Excuses. That is what i read when ever any evidence is provided to show how
science can be wrong. BUT, the amusing thing is science is always wrong
judging by the amounts of revisions needed. (which is not necessarly a bad
thing) But revisions seem to be the norm
>
> Mark Evans
(M)-adman
Is this an excuse or yet another example of how dating methods can be
influenced by external forces.
?
Boikat
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b9d570e1-29a3-4afd-9ffc-31ec3d0b6472@j6
>
>
>
> >> It has the appearance of being an "urban legend".
>
> > That's what it sounds like to me too: Something someone made up.
>
>
> I suspect the gibberish starts with sAdman's 'science'...
Or with spinny. I note the article said nothing about investigators
doing *any* sort of tests to date the body. The only tasts done were
basically DNA paternity tests, No "age testing" if the concrete or
remains were preformed, that I see, except on the age of the child
when she died. No DNA or C14 was used, as spinny claimed.
Boikat
>
> H.
Boikat
> more:http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/blockbaby....
>
> H.
Now that does mention "isotop analysis" of the remains, but it does
not say what kind of isotop analysis.
Boikat
David Scarlett
According to the article that was quoted in the original post;
"Dr. Stuart Black from the University of Reading carried out isotope
analysis on the remains, to try and establish a time of death and a
locality were Lara had been born. This concluded that Lara was almost
certainly from Cumbria and had probably died between 1990 and 1992".
More reliable sources ( e.g.BBC News) do not say anything about
dating methods but it appears that mitochondrial DNA was used and only
later were they able to determine the father's identity.
Dr. Black is a professor of archaeology at Reading and takes an
interest in forensic analyses including radiometric dating but none of
the articles mentions C14 and, being a research scientist, he might have
tried any number of experimental methods while waiting for DNA results.
--
Dave (No! not THAT Dave)
eAc Conspirator in training (or I would be if it existed)
BAAWA Knight hopeful
a.a. #6449
wf3h
> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
> 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
> Both were wrong.
>
> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
> Now, this is not hard.
>
> 2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>
> 2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>
> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
> Forgive my skepticism.
i guess he forgot that the same physics used to understand carbon
dating is used to explain thermonuclear weapons.
and they seem to work pretty well, regardless of what creationists
say.
r norman
wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong! They work pretty awfully, in my opinion. And
the results are far from pretty.
Mike Dworetsky
http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/s-black.asp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It always pays to find more sources.
I found the following in a link posted by Hypatia: it puts quite a
different cast on things.
"The police arrested Anne and Philip, and a search of their house uncovered
a collection of press cuttings about the Barepot baby.
"After lengthy questioning and studying videos that Anne and Philip had from
the years around 1990, the couple were released without charge.
*****"The forensic scientists were forced to re-assess the dates they had
from the isotope analysis and now acknowledged that baby Lara could have
died anywhere between the mid 1960s and the 1980s.*****
"Now the police attention moved to Anne's mother. Sheila Parker was known to
have had a 15 year affair with local builder Joseph Thwaites who had
fathered Anne and her sister Yvonne. Sheila and Joseph had passed away some
years earlier and, unfortunately for the investigation, Sheila had been
cremated.
*****"However, a stroke of luck revealed that a local hospital had retained
some histology slides from Sheila who had died of cancer. Although the
slides were 20 years old they reveal sufficient DNA to show that Sheila
could, indeed, have been Lara's mother. Sheila was known to have concealed
earlier pregnancies, so why not Lara?*****
!It is probable that Sheila gave Lara up for adoption and the adoptive
parents were in some way responsible for her death and concrete entombment.
But with so little evidence all the police can say with certainty, is that
they have found the family that little Lara was born into."
-------
So the isotope analysis was not about carbon dating (in the usual sense of
testing ancient organic materials) but was a method of using the C-14
abundance spike caused by the start of nuclear weapons testing in 1945
through the 1960s. And this method is far from infallible.
Also, DNA testing worked well enough to identify Lara's close relatives
despite the poor condition of the remains.
Boikat
FYI, fuctard, real scientists already know that contamination can
cause problem with accuracy.
Boikat
Inez
> On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
> > > myth? Just to be clear.
>
> > Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
>
> 1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
> 2) I read it. I was right.
>
> > Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
>
> And I care why?
>
> > As pointed out, there are aspects that do not hold water on
> > the face of it, such as using C14
>
> Who ever said C14?
>
> Like I said. You should read.
Why don't you tell us what isotope they used then? You seem to enjoy
pretending that you know things but rarely reveal your knowledge. Do
you have it or not? Can you link to this story so we can read if
first hand?
Boikat
Your first post claimed C14, now it's DNA decay. I just wnted to make
sure you didn't think the two were the same since you are a dumbass..
>
> You are hallucinating again. Stay off the drugs moron.
I'm not imagining that you are a dumbass, nor do I do drug that would
cause hallucinations, and the only morons around here are creatards
like you and your pet troll.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 12:10 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > DNA decay is not C14 dating, fool.
>
> > Whoever said that?
>
> Your first post claimed C14, now it's DNA decay. I just wnted to make
> sure you didn't think the two were the same since you are a dumbass..
You guys really are dumb.
Boikat
> On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
> > > myth? Just to be clear.
>
> > Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
>
> 1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
The hell I wouldn't..
> 2) I read it. I was right.
And still you do not grasp what I aid.
>
> > Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
>
> And I care why?
They why are you replying? Because you are an arrogant anti-science
fuctard asshole?
>
> > As pointed out, there are aspects that do not hold water on
> > the face of it, such as using C14
>
> Who ever said C14?
What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
.
>
> Like I said. You should read.
You should learn how to think.
>
> <snip> It was a human being, not a "corpse".
So, now you are going to claim that a dead human is not a corpse? Or
do you think "coprse" only apples to non-humans? Or are you making
some pissant attempt at showing "compassion"? Screw you. You are an
asshole, so nobody is going to buy into that.
>
> > The fact that you bought into the garbage is due to your ignorance of radiometric
> > dating of *any* kind.
>
> All I can say is you *utter stupid fucking bafoon*!
Projection. You offered *no* supporting evidence in your first post,
and the information there was muddled, and you call someone else a
"utter stupid fucking bafoon"? I would suggest, "Physician, heal
thyself", but you'd only have to sue yourself for malpractice.
>
> You may have a ppoint, if this was false.
The point appears to be boiling down to the falt being you posted a
garbled claim.
>
> As it is, you now look twice the idiot you did when you woke up.
Are you just stupid, or maliciously stupid? You posted a garbled up
claim, then you are now whinging because people are picking apart that
garbled claim. Pull your head out of your ass, you punk-assed
fuctard.
And yes, I'd tell you *that* to your face, too.
Boikat
conrad
That did not answer my question, and I'm not interested
in propaganda.
--
conrad
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 12:09 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
>
> > 1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
>
> The hell I wouldn't..
Well, you are obviously uglier than you like, and would like me to
remedy the situation. (Which I would).
> > 2) I read it. I was right.
>
> And still you do not grasp what I aid.
Hmm.
> > > Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
>
> > And I care why?
>
> They why are you replying?
Hmmm.
> Because you are an arrogant anti-science fuctard asshole?
No, on 2 count's.
1) I love science. You have some weird conception that
anti-evolutionists are anti-science.
Sad, really.
2) I have yet to meet an intellectual whose final argument
was "fucktard arsehole".
> > Who ever said C14?
>
> What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
Oh lots.
> > <snip> It was a human being, not a "corpse".
>
> So, now you are going to claim that a dead human is not a corpse?
No, I am going to claim, that if the people involved ever read this
thread
then your calous remark "corpse" shows you to be the insensative
bafoon everyone knows you are.
> then you are now whinging because people are picking apart that
> garbled claim.
Not my claim. It was BOONS like you who got the dates wrong.
(Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
can get employment.
> Pull your head out of your ass, you punk-assed
> fuctard.
>
> And yes, I'd tell you *that* to your face, too.
Well that told me.lol
Boikat
> On Oct 12, 8:24 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 12:09 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
>
> > > 1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
>
> > The hell I wouldn't..
>
> Well, you are obviously uglier than you like, and would like me to
> remedy the situation. (Which I would).
I'm sure you would. , In your fucked up dreams, ass wipe.
>
> > > 2) I read it. I was right.
>
> > And still you do not grasp what I aid.
>
> Hmm.
>
> > > > Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
>
> > > And I care why?
>
> > They why are you replying?
>
> Hmmm.
>
> > Because you are an arrogant anti-science fuctard asshole?
>
> No, on 2 count's.
>
> 1) I love science. You have some weird conception that
> anti-evolutionists are anti-science.
>
> Sad, really.
>
> 2) I have yet to meet an intellectual whose final argument
> was "fucktard arsehole".
Sorry, I gave up on even attempting to be intellectual with assholes
like you and your pet troll a long time ago, Mainly because you are
arrogant, ignorant, anti-science fuctard assholes.
>
> > > Who ever said C14?
>
> > What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
>
> Oh lots.
Then why did you not specify, asshole?
>
> > > <snip> It was a human being, not a "corpse".
>
> > So, now you are going to claim that a dead human is not a corpse?
>
> No, I am going to claim, that if the people involved ever read this
> thread
> then your calous remark "corpse" shows you to be the insensative
> bafoon everyone knows you are.
Is a dead person a "corpse" or not, asshole?
By the way, you are a dishonest asshole, too. Here's the full
paragraph that you "edited" without comment:
"So, now you are going to claim that a dead human is not a corpse?
Or
do you think "coprse" only apples to non-humans? Or are you making
some pissant attempt at showing "compassion"? Screw you. You are an
asshole, so nobody is going to buy into that. "
Up yours with your whinging about "calous remark", you dishonest piece
of shit.
>
> > then you are now whinging because people are picking apart that
> > garbled claim.
>
> Not my claim. It was BOONS like you who got the dates wrong.
I didn't isotope date anything, asshole
>
> (Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
> can get employment.
>
Oh, and it took a fuctard like you to correct the error? I doubt it.
> > Pull your head out of your ass, you punk-assed
> > fuctard.
>
> > And yes, I'd tell you *that* to your face, too.
>
> Well that told me.lol
Gee, does that mean you're going to actually pull your head out of
your ass?
Boikat
Boikat
And your are an asshole.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 3:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, you are obviously uglier than you like, and would like me to
> > remedy the situation. (Which I would).
>
> I'm sure you would. , In your fucked up dreams, ass wipe.
lol, you are funny.
> > > > Who ever said C14?
>
> > > What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
>
> > Oh lots.
>
> Then why did you not specify, asshole?
Iv'e never heard of "asshole dating" techniques.
Do you have a link?
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 3:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Not my claim. It was BOONS like you who got the dates wrong.
>
> I didn't isotope date anything, asshole
I should hope not. It's illegal in 49 states.
> > (Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
> > can get employment.
>
> Oh, and it took a fuctard like you to correct the error? I doubt it.
Whoever said the "error" was corrected?
They arrived at the right date. But not how you think.
Boikat
> On Oct 12, 9:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 3:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, you are obviously uglier than you like, and would like me to
> > > remedy the situation. (Which I would).
>
> > I'm sure you would. , In your fucked up dreams, ass wipe.
>
> lol, you are funny.
And you are still an arrogant anti-science fuctard asshole. Your
point?
>
> > > > > Who ever said C14?
>
> > > > What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
>
> > > Oh lots.
>
> > Then why did you not specify, asshole?
>
> Iv'e never heard of "asshole dating" techniques.
>
> Do you have a link?
Why provide a link when *you* have first hand experiance? I imagine
it's sort of like when adman comes up and plants a big wet kiss on
your ass, or you kiss his.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
news:FeqIk.47117$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
No, foolish one. The dating method was apparently based on the
contamination of the environment by isotopes from the period of atmospheric
nuclear weapons testing. Not on the standard methods of dating C-14 form
ancient organic materials.
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Boikat
> On Oct 12, 9:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 3:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not my claim. It was BOONS like you who got the dates wrong.
>
> > I didn't isotope date anything, asshole
>
> I should hope not. It's illegal in 49 states.
Meaningless, and failed, attempt a humor, noted. But I'm sure you
thought it was clever.
>
> > > (Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
> > > can get employment.
>
> > Oh, and it took a fuctard like you to correct the error? I doubt it.
>
> Whoever said the "error" was corrected?
>
> They arrived at the right date. But not how you think.
Point being, however the correct date was derived, it was not due to
the "enlightened" fuctard, like you or your assbuddy, popping out of
the sewer with "the answer".
BTW, what were you refering to in the thread title with the word
"Carbondating"? Maybe *that* is where the C14 idea came from,
asshole.
Boikat
spintronic
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> No, foolish one. The dating method was apparently based on the
> contamination of the environment by isotopes from the period of atmospheric
> nuclear weapons testing. Not on the standard methods of dating C-14 form
> ancient organic materials.
Lol, you's lot are funny.
(M)-adman
And you think no other contamination of the environment is possible?
Yeah, riiight
(M)-adman
>
> No, I am going to claim, that if the people involved ever read this
> thread then your calous remark "corpse" shows you to be the insensative
> bafoon everyone knows you are.
Every froop seems to have one. ATC NG has Buttikka. You guys at TO NG have
KittyKat here.
I am going to invest in drug company stocks.
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 4:00 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I didn't isotope date anything, asshole
>
> > I should hope not. It's illegal in 49 states.
>
> Meaningless, and failed, attempt a humor, noted. But I'm sure you
> thought it was clever.
I do my best.
> > > > (Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
> > > > can get employment.
>
> > > Oh, and it took a fuctard like you to correct the error? I doubt it.
>
> > Whoever said the "error" was corrected?
>
> > They arrived at the right date. But not how you think.
>
> Point being,
Point being you *ASSUME* there was an error.
A ghost in the machine. There wasn't.
The isotope evidence was placed to one side when common
sense prevailed.
> however the correct date was derived, it was not due to
> the "enlightened" fuctard, like you or your assbuddy, popping out of
> the sewer with "the answer".
How do you know?
spintronic
Erhmm. cough.
Isotop has a thingy on the end.
Err an "e", thats it.
Boikat
So, what you are saying is that you have nothing but spelling flames
left? Asshole.
Boikat
Boikat
Good. You'll need the drugs, I'm sure.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Oct 12, 10:20 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 4:00 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I didn't isotope date anything, asshole
>
> > > I should hope not. It's illegal in 49 states.
>
> > Meaningless, and failed, attempt a humor, noted. But I'm sure you
> > thought it was clever.
>
> I do my best.
>
> > > > > (Or should I say [BOONS like your ASSOCIATES]) At least they
> > > > > can get employment.
>
> > > > Oh, and it took a fuctard like you to correct the error? I doubt it.
>
> > > Whoever said the "error" was corrected?
>
> > > They arrived at the right date. But not how you think.
>
> > Point being,
>
> Point being you *ASSUME* there was an error.
> A ghost in the machine. There wasn't.
*YOU* are te one claiming there was an error. Asshole.
>
> The isotope evidence was placed to one side when common
> sense prevailed.
So what?
>
> > however the correct date was derived, it was not due to
> > the "enlightened" fuctard, like you or your assbuddy, popping out of
> > the sewer with "the answer".
>
> How do you know?
Because you are both too stupid. Asshole.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 12, 10:09 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Like I said. You should read.
>
> You seem to enjoy pretending that you know things
nutteingd
Woops sorry. Let me try again.
What ever you do *DONT* google that word.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
You think you are winning?
LMAO.
You have a 380% error in 38 years.
Go figure BOON-HEAD.
Boikat
No. You stupidity is undefeated. I just like watching you
spinnnnnnnnnn.
>
> LMAO.
Chuckleheads like you do that a lot, I've noticed. But you can't help
it. That's because you are an ignorant asshole.
>
> You have a 380% error in 38 years.
Ah. Another data point that demonstrates your anti-science attitude
and stupidity. Asshole.
>
> Go figure BOON-HEAD.-
BTW, the "C14" notion came from your thread title, asshole.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
Cites to those posts, please.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Stuart
> On Oct 12, 9:50 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> > saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
> > In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
> > Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
> > 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
> > 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
> > Both were wrong.
>
> > Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
> > The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
> > And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
> > Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
> > Now, this is not hard.
>
> > 2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>
> > 2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>
> > Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
> > And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
> > Forgive my skepticism.
>
> between 2 siblings? The mother/daughter relationship assumption
> sounds like a quick & dirty decision by local police.
>
> Carbon dating is not accurate over millions of years.
Accurate... hell, its not even applicable for ages that
old.
Stuart
Mark Evans
> On Oct 12, 4:13 pm, Mark Evans <mev...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:50 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > accurate for very recent (a few years) dates. Sort of like trying to
> > measure a fraction of an inch or a mile with a yardstick marked only
> > in inches.
>
> Or the world with a stick? It is possible.
Possible but not very accurate.
Mark Evans
Dave Oldridge
9646-11e...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
>Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
>
>In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
>Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
>1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
>2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
>Both were wrong.
>
>
>Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
>
>The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
>And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
>Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
>
>
>Now, this is not hard.
>
>
>2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>
>
>2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>
>
>Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
>And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
Nobody says carbon dating is 100% accurate over millions of years.
Nobody says you can get really accurate dates on everything using 14C.
Bones, in particular have known problems in this regard. The reasons for
the problems are well-understood and have to do with the chemistry of
carbon. In short, none of this affects dates of millions of years.
Those are measured by other processes that would not be suitable for
measuring something like this.
>Forgive my skepticism.
You are not a skeptic. There is none to forgive.
What is your explanation for the fact that isochrons of any given type
increase in slope with stratigraphic depth? If the slope correlates with
the age of the rock, then that explains it, but those slopes give ages of
millions and even thousands of millions of years.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
(M)-adman
>>> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>>>
>>> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>>>
>>> In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>>>
>>> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>>>
>>> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old
>>> woman. 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>>>
>>> Both were wrong.
>>>
>>> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>>>
>>> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
>>> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>>>
>>> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>>>
>>> Now, this is not hard.
>>>
>>> 2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>>>
>>> 2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>>>
>>> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>>>
>>> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of
>>
>> So who did the isotope dating- IRC or AIG?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> According to the article that was quoted in the original post;
> "Dr. Stuart Black from the University of Reading carried out isotope
> analysis on the remains, to try and establish a time of death and a
> locality were Lara had been born. This concluded that Lara was almost
> certainly from Cumbria and had probably died between 1990 and 1992".
> More reliable sources ( e.g.BBC News) do not say anything about
> dating methods but it appears that mitochondrial DNA was used and only
> later were they able to determine the father's identity.
> Dr. Black is a professor of archaeology at Reading and takes an
> interest in forensic analyses including radiometric dating but none of
> the articles mentions C14 and, being a research scientist, he might
> have tried any number of experimental methods while waiting for DNA
> results.
Spectaulation on your part. The higher probability and the most common test
in a case such as this would have been C14
Shane
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:50:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
> <spint...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>>saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
> Cites to those posts, please.
They don't exist--but I think that you knew that already. I
just read all 75 current posts in the thread.
Pretty much the only person to mention millions of years was
Madman himself, and he was not talking of carbon dating, but
a variety of different methods.
So it leaves me wondering if spinny just felt a compulsion
to post a lie, or whether he truly believes that an
indeterminate number of people, but lets say more than 10
for it to be "lots", actually posted what he claims above.
Sadly we will probably never know.
Shane
Eratosthenes got pretty close.
Boikat
You haven't been paying attention, have you? That's what your troll
master implied with the thread title, now he denies it was C14 dating
(which is the only term "Carbondating" applies to).
Boikat
Mark Evans
Close yes but not dead on. Plus he had the advantage of knowing what
he was up to, unlike the OP of this thread.
Mark Evans
Charles Brenner
Quite right to be embarrassed at the fact that your source is the
website of a certifiable crackpot. (I know the guy.)
Charles
The Enigmatic One
<bcbfc29f-aadb-43d7...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
spint...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 10:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
>> > myth? Just to be clear.
>>
>> Read again what I said, fuctard Jr.
>
>
>1) If we was face to face, you would never say such a silly thing.
>2) I read it. I was right.
Sure he would, as you're a fucking moron. Not really much use trying to
pretend otherwise.
-Tim
Nashton
> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
>
> In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
> 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
> Both were wrong.
>
>
> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
>
> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
>
>
> Now, this is not hard.
>
>
> 2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>
>
> 2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>
>
> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
>
>
> Forgive my skepticism.
>
Skepticism is a good trait, especially when it's based on fact.
Excellent contribution.
spintronic
No you haven't been paying attention.
>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
Statement. People rip into adman: *Because* adman ahs skeptism about
the scientific validity of carbon dating.
My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
The story was about so called "scientific dating" methods.
Which were off by 380% in 38 years.
The only error in the original post was the "million". I misread
someones post.
The story however is well documented, and the baby's death WAS
*incorrectly*
dated.
Cry, beg, borrow, steal, moan, *try* to piss-take.
This *FACT* remains!
*IF* it hadn't been realised that the parents died *BEFORE* the, so
called
"scientific concensus date of 1993". You bozos would have happily
gone along with that
date, and some poor woman would be in prison.
Congrats.
John Vreeland
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
>Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
>
>In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
>Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
>1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
>2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
>Both were wrong.
>
>
>Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
>
>The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
>And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
>Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
>
>
>Now, this is not hard.
>
>
>2003 - 1993 = 10 years. = Predicted by radiometric dating.
>
>
>2003 - ~1965 = 38 years. ~ Actual age.
>
>
>Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
>And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
>
>Forgive my skepticism.
Not enough details to understand what are talking about. What kind of
radiometric dating was performed, and more importantly, why? There
are types of dating which might make sense in these circumstances,
such as looking for C-14 from atomic fallout, but that technique was
only just perfected within the last few months. I suppose the DNA
testing identified a relative with a 50% DNA match. So it happened to
be a sister instead of a mother. Or did you think that was just a
coincidence?
Either this story is excessively garbled or someone just made it up.
Speaking of errors, have you read the bible lately? Which one?
Boikat
> On Oct 13, 3:58 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 8:43 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > You haven't been paying attention, have you? That's what your troll
> > master implied with the thread title, now he denies it was C14 dating
> > (which is the only term "Carbondating" applies to).
>
> No you haven't been paying attention.
You are confused. And dishonest.
>
> >In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> > saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
> Statement. People rip into adman: *Because* adman ahs skeptism about
> the scientific validity of carbon dating.
Unless it fits in with his demented fantasies. Then it's perfectly
fine.
>
> My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
THREAD FUCKING TITLE FUCTARD.
>
> The story was about so called "scientific dating" methods.
> Which were off by 380% in 38 years.
Then why is "Carbondating" in the title, unless it was a deliberate
attempt by you, to mislead? Asshole.
>
> The only error in the original post was the "million". I misread
> someones post.
And putting *Carbondating* in the title. Ooops, that was probably not
a mistake, that was probably a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Asshole. Or it was a mistake, and now you are whinging because the
initial replies doubted your claim because you *made a mistake*.
Asshole.
>
> The story however is well documented, and the baby's death WAS
> *incorrectly*
> dated.
But not due to Carbondating as *normally* used, fucktard.
>
> Cry, beg, borrow, steal, moan, *try* to piss-take.
>
> This *FACT* remains!
>
> *IF* it hadn't been realised that the parents died *BEFORE* the, so
> called
> "scientific concensus date of 1993".
And it was through scientific crosschecking (That's the "lengthly
questioning and video" ) that this was determned that a reassessment
of the data was needed, Asshole.
"The forensic scientists were forced to re-assess the dates they had
from the isotope analysis and now acknowledged that baby Lara could
have died anywhere between the mid 1960s and the 1980s."
So they still used the same data *plus the additional data* and
modified their theory. IF science worked the way you pet troll thinks
it should work, it would still be an open case. Dumbshit asshole.
> You bozos would have happily
> gone along with that
> date, and some poor woman would be in prison.
Wrong:
"The police arrested Anne and Philip, and a search of their house
uncovered a collection of press cuttings about the Barepot baby.
After lengthy questioning and studying videos that Anne and Philip had
from the years around 1990, the couple were released without charge."
Read the last sentence again: * the couple was released without
charge*. In case you are extra slow witted this morning, that means
*nobody* would be in prision today, and the case would still be open.
Asshole.
>
> Congrats.
You must be the ductard delux edition.
Boikat
Boikat
Boikat
Ignorant fools. The couple that wwas arrested were released without
charge.
Skepticism is good, but it can be overdone.
Boikat
spintronic
OH dear!
Boikat
> <SNIP>
>
> OH dear!
Yup. You fucked up again, didn't you.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 13, 8:18 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> > Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
>
> THREAD FUCKING TITLE FUCTARD.
And?
> > The story was about so called "scientific dating" methods.
> > Which were off by 380% in 38 years.
>
> Then why is "Carbondating" in the title, unless it was a deliberate
> attempt by you, to mislead? Asshole.
Why is "wind" in the title of "gone with the wind"?
I did not see a "wind" in that film.
Perhaps you are so stupid, that this post is wasting my electricity.
You owe me £0.001
> > The story however is well documented, and the baby's death WAS
> > *incorrectly* dated.
>
> But not due to Carbondating as *normally* used, fucktard.
LMAO.
1) Whoever said the *ERROR* was due to "carbon dating"?
2) Who said this technique is *normally* used
(under these conditions)?
3) The babys death *WAS INCORRECTLY DATED*.
> > Cry, beg, borrow, steal, moan, *try* to piss-take.
>
> > This *FACT* remains!
>
> > *IF* it hadn't been realised that the parents died *BEFORE* the, so
> > called
> > "scientific concensus date of 1993".
>
> And it was through scientific crosschecking (That's the "lengthly
> questioning and video" ) that this was determned that a reassessment
> of the data was needed, Asshole.
Please: *EXPLAIN* exactly how you REASSES data?
Data is data.
It Needs no REASSESING.
It Just *IS*
Or was it your *interpritation* that was flacked up?
> "The forensic scientists were forced to re-assess the dates they had
> from the isotope analysis and now acknowledged that baby Lara could
> have died anywhere between the mid 1960s and the 1980s."
LMAO.
*FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR INTERPRITATION OF DATA*!
> So they still used the same data *plus the additional data* and
> modified their theory.
AH, Now its the theory that is wrong?
DATA + DATA = (our theory is fucked)
> IF science worked the way you pet troll thinks
> it should work, it would still be an open case.
If science worked the way you spasdicks thought,
We would have
1) A 10 year old baby skeleton, that is 38 years old,
2) 1 woman in prison
3) 1 dead woman giving birth 6 years after she died.
4) 1 Dead father having sex at 70. 9 years after he was dead.
5) 1 sample 380% out in 38 years.
Now why dont you retard s admit YOU FUCKED UP?
Boikat
It's a true story (Look for Hypatia's posts). Spinny mangled it,
either our of stupidity or with intent to muddle the facts.
>
> Speaking of errors, have you read the bible lately? Which one?- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
Greg Guarino
>spintronic wrote:
>> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
I was pretty sure no knowledgeable person would say such a thing, but
I went and read the whole thread. It turns out no one did. The only
person who mentioned a specific time limit for radiocarbon dating took
issue with adman's figure of 30,000 years, writing that it was
accurate to 50,000 years instead. I believe there was one claim of 350
million years for radio isotope dating in general.
There are of course lower limits to the useful range of the various
methods as well. Ten, or even a few tens of years is comfortably below
the ones I remember. It's the same reason that stepping on the truck
scale at the weigh station isn't an efficient way to see if you've
lost a pound or two; there's not enough deflection of the instrument
to get an accurate reading. So if someone actually did use such a
method in the case you mention, it was a poorly chosen tool for the
task, and a poorly chosen story to try to cast doubt on C14 dating.
>> Forgive my skepticism.
>
>Skepticism is a good trait, especially when it's based on fact.
>Excellent contribution.
Credulous acceptance of a clearly flawed story because it leans in the
direction of your beliefs can hardly be called "skepticism".
Greg Guarino
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 12, 4:13 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 10:01 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT), in article
> > > <c2085bbf-a100-4fae-ada9-f387c2768...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, conrad
> > > stated..."
>
> > > >On Oct 12, 8:50=A0am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> > > >> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
> > > >> In 2003 a concrete block was found in cumbria, with a baby inside.
>
> > > >> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
> > > >> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
> > > >> 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
> > > >> Both were wrong.
>
> > > >> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
> > > >> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
> > > >> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
> > > >> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
> > > >> Now, this is not hard.
>
>
> > > >> 2003 - ~1965 =3D 38 years. ~ =A0Actual age.
>
> > > >> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
> > > >> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
> > > >> Forgive my skepticism.
>
> > > >and assume everything you have said in your post
> > > >is accurate. Then, this does not preclude that
> > > >someone botched the test. Your unstated assumption
> > > >is that the dating was conducted without error.
> > > >What evidence then, do you have, to suggest that
> > > >that was the case?
>
> > > I have some reservations about this story.
>
> > > Why would someone do isotope dating on the body of a recent
> > > death? What does the DNA testing have to do with giving a
> > > date? What is the evidence for the story that the baby and
> > > the woman were sisters, and that it had "really" died in
> > > the 1960s?
>
> > > The story is fragmentary to the point of being incoherent.
>
> > > It has no references where we can check out the details.
>
> > > It has the appearance of being an "urban legend".
>
> > That's what it sounds like to me too: Something someone made up.
>
> > Your post beat my post, ;)
>
> So, for future reference. You are (without evidence) saying this is
> myth? Just to be clear.
No one has said that. Please learn to read.
>
> Funny, John & Weirdo discarded loads of sequences (without evidence)
> in another thread.
This is a blatant lie and you know it. The evidence and reasoning were
presented in detail.
>
> Weird how you lot discound evidence when it suites you.
Is there anything you ever tell the truth about?
spintronic
Opinion is not evidence.
> > Weird how you lot discound evidence when it suites you.
>
> Is there anything you ever tell the truth about?
Yes. I'm quite handsome.
Boikat
> On Oct 13, 3:24 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 8:18 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> > > Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
>
> > THREAD FUCKING TITLE FUCTARD.
>
> And?
"And" what Fuctard? If this was not about "Carbondating", why is that
word in the title. Asshole.
>
> > > The story was about so called "scientific dating" methods.
> > > Which were off by 380% in 38 years.
>
> > Then why is "Carbondating" in the title, unless it was a deliberate
> > attempt by you, to mislead? Asshole.
>
> Why is "wind" in the title of "gone with the wind"?
Ask the author. That is why I ask *YOU*, fuctard, why is
"Carbondating" in the title of *thius* thread, that *you* started?
Asshole.
>
> I did not see a "wind" in that film.
>
> Perhaps you are so stupid, that this post is wasting my electricity.
It seems to me the *Stupid* lies with the fuctard that starts a thread
with "Carbondating" in the title, then claims the thead is not about
carbondating. Either that, or it's simple dishonesty on the part of
the fuctard author in question. Asshole.
>
> You owe me £0.001
Sorry, you have to pay for your own stupidity and dishonesty, asshole.
>
> > > The story however is well documented, and the baby's death WAS
> > > *incorrectly* dated.
>
> > But not due to Carbondating as *normally* used, fucktard.
>
> LMAO.
Ignorant pissants like you do that a lot, I've noticed.
>
> 1) Whoever said the *ERROR* was due to "carbon dating"?
Then what "error" are you talking about?
> 2) Who said this technique is *normally* used
> (under these conditions)?
Since you were either vague through dishonesty or through a flawed
recounting of the story, *you* implied it.
> 3) The babys death *WAS INCORRECTLY DATED*.
And later, correctly dated in light of additional data. Your point?
>
> > > Cry, beg, borrow, steal, moan, *try* to piss-take.
>
> > > This *FACT* remains!
>
> > > *IF* it hadn't been realised that the parents died *BEFORE* the, so
> > > called
> > > "scientific concensus date of 1993".
>
> > And it was through scientific crosschecking (That's the "lengthly
> > questioning and video" ) that this was determned that a reassessment
> > of the data was needed, Asshole.
>
> Please: *EXPLAIN* exactly how you REASSES data?
You look at it again in light of additional data. No wonder your
understanding of science is on the level of someone from the
neolithic.
>
> Data is data.
>
> It Needs no REASSESING.
>
> It Just *IS*
Are you being intentionally stupid, or does your stupidity come
naturally?
>
> Or was it your *interpritation* that was flacked up?
Not "my" interpretaion, since I wasn't there. moron.
>
> > "The forensic scientists were forced to re-assess the dates they had
> > from the isotope analysis and now acknowledged that baby Lara could
> > have died anywhere between the mid 1960s and the 1980s."
>
> LMAO.
>
Again, why do you idiots find your idiocy so funny? But I lmost
forgot, there is a reason that the word "chucklhead" and "idiot" are
synonyms.
> *FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR INTERPRITATION OF DATA*!
Yrs. In view of additional data. Now I see why you and assmonkey are
butt-buddies. You both think that reassessing the data to form a new
theory based upon additional evidence is "funny". What you two
dumshits do not realize is taht if science, forensic or researech in
general, did not reassess the theory and the data, when new data is
introduced, *that* is when someone inocent can be locked up.
>
> > So they still used the same data *plus the additional data* and
> > modified their theory.
>
> AH, Now its the theory that is wrong?
Yes, fuctard, the *ORIGINAL* theory was wrong. I would have thought
you'd have figured that out when the articles stated that the couple
that had been arrested were released after questioning and the poliece
had to reasses the data. But, you are an idiot, so I can see how that
may have slipped by.
>
> DATA + DATA = (our theory is fucked)
Do you even know how to wipe your own ass after you take a dump?
> > IF science worked the way you pet troll thinks
> > it should work, it would still be an open case.
>
> If science worked the way you spasdicks thought,
>
> We would have
>
> 1) A 10 year old baby skeleton, that is 38 years old,
Demonstratably false, since the true age was discovered in the light
of new evidence. That is how science works. Asshole.
> 2) 1 woman in prison
She was released after questioning and never charged even before the
data was reassessed, idiot. Read the fucking articles, asshole.
> 3) 1 dead woman giving birth 6 years after she died.
Police did not know that at the time, asshole.
> 4) 1 Dead father having sex at 70. 9 years after he was dead.
See above, asshole.
> 5) 1 sample 380% out in 38 years.
Again, found through reinterpretation of the data plus additional
data, asshole.
>
> Now why dont you retard s admit YOU FUCKED UP?
If they had fucked up, *then* the woman would be in prison. But the
fact is, you mindless idiot, they *did* admit they fucked up, in
their initial "theory", once they interviewed and investigated
further, and then they had to do further testing and re-evaluation of
the previous data. What part of that flies over your punk-assed
ignorant asshole head? Oh, wait. I just answers as to the "why".
It's because you are a fuctard that does not understand the basic
concept that theories are modified when new data is discovered.
Now, along with all your all your whinging, whining and complaining, I
would then ask, how would you have gone about investigating the
discovery of a childs corpse in concrete?
Now, you can kiss my ass, or you can keep on demonstrating that you
are retarded, or you can answer that question. Your choice, asshole.
Boikat
(M)-adman
BAHahahah!!!! Boikitty admit error? no way
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
you can be added to the list too!
Boikat
Please point out where I erred in the cited case, or was even involved
with the case,
But if admitting mistakes are so important to you, how about some of
yours:
Claiming there have been wars fought because science discredited some
religious view.
Claiming that WW1, as a result of Hitlers understanding of the ToE.
Claiming you have "created genes".
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Were you wrong, were you lying?
Boikat
Boikat
2) spintronic.
>
> you can be added to the list too!-
BTW, Since you were replying to spintronic, your comment must have
been dirrected at him, so I added him to your list of "confirmed
liars", and corrected an error (Designated with the "*") in your
original. No need to thank me,
Boikat
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Shane
<remarcs...@ozemail.com.au>:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:27:10 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:50:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
>> <spint...@hotmail.com>:
>>>In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
>>>saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>> Cites to those posts, please.
>They don't exist--but I think that you knew that already. I
>just read all 75 current posts in the thread.
I strongly suspected it, given the source. And you have my
deepest respect (and sympathy) for your effort "above and
beyond". ;-)
>Pretty much the only person to mention millions of years was
>Madman himself, and he was not talking of carbon dating, but
>a variety of different methods.
That wasn't really clear, especially given the thread title.
And I'd never assume he knows the difference.
>So it leaves me wondering if spinny just felt a compulsion
>to post a lie, or whether he truly believes that an
>indeterminate number of people, but lets say more than 10
>for it to be "lots", actually posted what he claims above.
He's been munging the attribution indents lately, so it's
not really clear who he thought posted what.
>Sadly we will probably never know.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
spintronic
You stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid boy.
On Oct 13, 7:11 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:14 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 3:24 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 13, 8:18 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> > > > Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
>
> > > THREAD FUCKING TITLE FUCTARD.
>
> > And?
>
> "And" what Fuctard? If this was not about "Carbondating", why is that
> word in the title. Asshole.
Why not?
> > Why is "wind" in the title of "gone with the wind"?
>
> Ask the author. That is why I ask *YOU*,
Right, you *ASK* the author. You do not *TELL* the aurthor.
And I already told you. So fuck off!
> > I did not see a "wind" in that film.
>
> > Perhaps you are so stupid, that this post is wasting my electricity.
>
> It seems to me the *Stupid* lies with the fuctard that starts a thread
> with "Carbondating" in the title, then claims the thead is not about
> carbondating.
I am writing a book. I may entitle it,
"WHY THISBOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARBONDATING'"!
Now *according* to stupid fucks like yourself, it's a book about
"carbondating". (Must be, it has *carbondating* in the title)
You dopy fuck.
**************************************************************
> > 1) Whoever said the *ERROR* was due to "carbon dating"?
>
> Then what "error" are you talking about?
The 380% error. What else?
> > 2) Who said this technique is *normally* used
> > (under these conditions)?
>
> Since you were either vague through dishonesty or through a flawed
> recounting of the story, *you* implied it.
No, I never did. I have stated quite clearly.
Isotopic dating, and D.N.A degredation rates.
> > 3) The babys death *WAS INCORRECTLY DATED*.
>
> And later, correctly dated in light of additional data. Your point?
The baby'd date of death was determimned without isotopic dating.
The data was *NEVER* corrected, it was *DISCOUNTED*.
Listen ffs.
> > Please: *EXPLAIN* exactly how you REASSES data?
>
> You look at it again in light of additional data.
So, you have the isotopes, you calculate their decay rate, and ERGO
Date.
Now, *WHY* should new (unrellated-not by radiodating) evidence affect
these figures?
It shouldn't! Simple! (like you really).
> > Data is data.
>
> > It Needs no REASSESING.
>
> > It Just *IS*
>
> Are you being intentionally stupid, or does your stupidity come
> naturally?
You are dumb. I mean really fucking dumb.
Lets (for argument's sake) say you have a 88.678685% specimen.
Does that figure change because you find out it's a tuesday?
Does that figure change because you find out it's raining?
Does that figure change, if you find out that the figure is *WRONG*?
Lets say you have a daughter/parent ratio of X
And to find time, you use;
t = 1/lambda ln (1+X)
Does X change, because conflicting evidence "proves"
t is wrong?
Suppose you have no conflicting evidence, how can you be
sure X is correct?
X was never reassessed in this case. It was DUMPED.
Boikat
> Boikat, Boikat, Boikat.
>
> You stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid boy.
Why should the opinin of a moron like you matter?
>
> On Oct 13, 7:11 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 10:14 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 13, 3:24 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 13, 8:18 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > My reply :> Come close, I'll tell you a story.
>
> > > > > Nowhere did I say this "story was about carbondating".
>
> > > > THREAD FUCKING TITLE FUCTARD.
>
> > > And?
>
> > "And" what Fuctard? If this was not about "Carbondating", why is that
> > word in the title. Asshole.
>
> Why not?
Becuse you are a dishonest prick.?
>
> > > Why is "wind" in the title of "gone with the wind"?
>
> > Ask the author. That is why I ask *YOU*,
>
> Right, you *ASK* the author. You do not *TELL* the aurthor.
> And I already told you. So fuck off!
In other words, you were being intentionally deceptive. Asshole.
>
> > > I did not see a "wind" in that film.
>
> > > Perhaps you are so stupid, that this post is wasting my electricity.
>
> > It seems to me the *Stupid* lies with the fuctard that starts a thread
> > with "Carbondating" in the title, then claims the thead is not about
> > carbondating.
>
> I am writing a book. I may entitle it,
>
> "WHY THISBOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARBONDATING'"!
>
> Now *according* to stupid fucks like yourself, it's a book about
> "carbondating". (Must be, it has *carbondating* in the title)
>
> You dopy fuck.
>
Why would you want to write a book entitled "Why thisbook has nothing
to do with carbondating"? Sounds kind of stupid, if you ask me.
Asshole.
> **************************************************************
>
> > > 1) Whoever said the *ERROR* was due to "carbon dating"?
>
> > Then what "error" are you talking about?
>
> The 380% error. What else?
And wat was that error based upon?
>
> > > 2) Who said this technique is *normally* used
> > > (under these conditions)?
>
> > Since you were either vague through dishonesty or through a flawed
> > recounting of the story, *you* implied it.
>
> No, I never did. I have stated quite clearly.
>
Sorry, what are you whining about then? Asshole.
> Isotopic dating, and D.N.A degredation rates.
What isotope? And was DNA degradation even mentioned in the articles?
>
> > > 3) The babys death *WAS INCORRECTLY DATED*.
>
> > And later, correctly dated in light of additional data. Your point?
>
> The baby'd date of death was determimned without isotopic dating.
You might want to r-read the article.
>
> The data was *NEVER* corrected, it was *DISCOUNTED*.
Oh? Then how was the actual range of dates determined?
>
> Listen ffs.
What? Did you fart? Asshole.
>
> > > Please: *EXPLAIN* exactly how you REASSES data?
>
> > You look at it again in light of additional data.
>
> So, you have the isotopes, you calculate their decay rate, and ERGO
> Date.
>
> Now, *WHY* should new (unrellated-not by radiodating) evidence affect
> these figures?
It wouldn't, but it would cause the data to be reanalysed or even
retested. Asshole.
>
> It shouldn't! Simple! (like you really).
As opposed to dishonest, like you.
>
> > > Data is data.
>
> > > It Needs no REASSESING.
>
> > > It Just *IS*
>
> > Are you being intentionally stupid, or does your stupidity come
> > naturally?
>
> You are dumb. I mean really fucking dumb.
How would you know? You're so stupid, or dishonest, that you put
"carbondating" in the title, then decide that the thread doesn't have
anything to do with carbondating. You sound a bit confused in the
head. But than again, you're an asshole.
>
> Lets (for argument's sake) say you have a 88.678685% specimen.
>
> Does that figure change because you find out it's a tuesday?
> Does that figure change because you find out it's raining?
>
> Does that figure change, if you find out that the figure is *WRONG*?
Your example does not apply, fuctard.
>
> Lets say you have a daughter/parent ratio of X
>
> And to find time, you use;
>
> t = 1/lambda ln (1+X)
>
> Does X change, because conflicting evidence "proves"
> t is wrong?
>
> Suppose you have no conflicting evidence, how can you be
> sure X is correct?
>
> X was never reassessed in this case. It was DUMPED.
How woud you know? Besides, that reminds me of the old saying (but
modified to suit the situation), If you can't convince them with lies,
attempt to baffle them with bullshit."
You are a fuctard who got caught being a fuctard.
Ans you are an asshole.
Boikat
(M)-adman
A lie on your part. Clearly the evidence says other wise. The story, well
written btw, the link, and the evidence, all say the dating was flawed
Keep up these lies and you will be on my list of confirmed liers. I'll be
watching
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
>
> Is there anything you ever tell the truth about?
Yes. He tells the truth that you lie.
You will be the third i catch in a blatant lie. Then you can be added to my
list
Max
simple newspaper article I truly doubt it.
>
> > > > Until you support it, I doubt the claim.
>
> > > And I care why?
>
> > They why are you replying?
>
> Hmmm.
>
And that's as close as you are ever likely to come to admit you are
wrong.
>
> 1) I love science. You have some weird conception that
> anti-evolutionists are anti-science.
>
You love science the way Ike loved Tina. That kinda love we can do
without.
>
> > > Who ever said C14?
>
> > What other "isotope" is used to date organic remains, asshole?
>
> Oh lots.
>
And yet you started this thread about carbon dating (got your numbers
wrong btw). I would like to hear of these other "isotopes" used to
date organic remains. Since there are "lots" you won't have any
trouble naming 3 I suppose.
> > > <snip> It was a human being, not a "corpse".
>
> > So, now you are going to claim that a dead human is not a corpse?
>
> No, I am going to claim, that if the people involved ever read this
> thread
> then your calous remark "corpse" shows you to be the insensative
> bafoon everyone knows you are.
So corpse is now a derogitory statement? You are now the king of
sensitivity? Knock me over with a feather.
Max
>
> It's been a long time since I perused this case.
>
> But from what I remember, they tried to date it from DNA decay rates.- Hide quoted text -
>
Max
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Boikat
>
>
>
>
>
> <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 8:50 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In the "David/solomon" thread, lots of people are riping into adman,
> >> saying carbon dating is accurate even upto millions of years.
>
>
>
> >> Two so called *conclusive* tests were performed.
>
> >> 1) DNA analysis, which was key in the arrest of a ~40 year old woman.
>
> >> 2) Isotope dating which dated the baby to 1993.
>
> >> Both were wrong.
>
> >> Turns out the ~40 year old woman, was the baby's sister.
>
> >> The babys mum had died at a ripe old age in 1988
> >> And the father died in 1984 in his 70's.
>
> >> Working from the mother's menopause, the baby was born in the 60's.
>
> >> Now, this is not hard.
>
>
>
> >> Your sample was 380% incorrect in just 38 years.
>
> >> And you are trying to say it is 100% accurate over millions of years.
>
> >> Forgive my skepticism.
>
> >recent origin? I tink, untill you provide a citation, that you either
> >made up the story, or your source made it up, and you did not question
> >it.
>
> >Also, IIRC, post 1945 C14 dating for *anything* recent, is screwed up
> >due to atomic bomb tests and other events, like Chernobyl
>
> In particular, there was an enormous spike in atmospheric 14C between
> 1960 and 1965. Anybody who naively performs a carbon dating test on a
> sample from that period would get a far more recent date without
> correcting for the known variation in 14C levels. And anybody with
> any experience in performing carbon dating would touch such a
> situation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
From the second articl Hyapatia cited:
spintronic
You stupid stupid boy.
On Oct 14, 4:06 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Boikat, Boikat, Boikat.
>
> > You stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid boy.
> > Isotopic dating, and D.N.A degredation rates.
>
> What isotope? And was DNA degradation even mentioned in the articles?
Lol. Not the ones you have access to.
> > > > 3) The babys death *WAS INCORRECTLY DATED*.
>
> > > And later, correctly dated in light of additional data. Your point?
>
> > The baby'd date of death was determimned without isotopic dating.
>
> You might want to r-read the article.
Boikat, Boikat, Boikat. Silly man.
You might want to check My IP before 2007.
Clue, first hand knowledge, I know some of the people involved, oh and
did I
say Public libraries? Which although are modernised in some cities are
quite
backward in places like cumbria.