Is Pagano old-earth or young-earth?

[Paul Ciszek]

I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
the case? Those two don't seem to go together.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Bob Berger]

In article <jktdu9$85$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek says...

>
>I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.

Don't let it worry you. You're not responsible for the creationists' sexual
orientation.

[Mark Buchanan]

Tony likely won't commit to anything. He has said that he doesn't even
defend any type of creationism and won't even say if geocentrism is
true - only that it is just as good as helocentrism. His main purpose
is simply to show everyone how wrong they are.

His strategy is very convenient as he can blissfully ignore any
difficult questions. But he isn't consistent, sometimes he slips up
and actually claims something is true - but of course he then is
unwilling to defend those claims.

His lunacy continues to be mildly amusing but I've decided to ignore
him.

Mark

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>the case? Those two don't seem to go together.

He says he's a YEC, although apparently he was an OEC in the past, but
not sure about his change of affiliation

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/33ace7f742b6ad27

Concerning immutability, decide for yourself (at the end of):

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eb3374497d710973

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[John Harshman]

Paul Ciszek wrote:
> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>

No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
views, since he rejects radiometric dating. "Old" may be only a few
million years. And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
God can change them if he wants, and it's possible that Ray thinks new
species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.

Tony is a YEC, I think. But he seldom is willing to commit himself to
anything so concrete as a particular idea of age for anything.

[John Vreeland]

Tony is pushing the post-modern viewpoint to the hilt because it
allows him the freedom to believe his weird religion without having to
face actual facts. In a post-modern worldview, facts do not exist and
science is a myth.

I am not entirely sure that his ability to ignore reality is a
conscious one. I recall him dismissing the existence of
geosynchronous satellites with a hand waive, as if they proved nothing
about the Earth's rotation, while focusing his attention on weaker
points. He is either playing a silly game (and trolling us all to the
hilt) or his own mind is playing tricks on him.

--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[Friar Broccoli]

Not a hand wave. Even Carlip has said that it is conceivable that a
stationary body in a rotating environment might have the characteristics
of a rotating body. I believe it is related to the concept of frame
dragging.

He does however dismiss many facts that are too complex for him to
understand.

>He is either playing a silly game (and trolling us all to the
>hilt) or his own mind is playing tricks on him.

--

[John Vreeland]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:26:46 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

Actually I tried to make this point once myself. Under Relativity a
stationary Earth is perfectly rational, but AFAIK Pagano rejects
Relativity. Is it unBiblical?

>He does however dismiss many facts that are too complex for him to
>understand.
>
>>He is either playing a silly game (and trolling us all to the
>>hilt) or his own mind is playing tricks on him.
--

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>the case? Those two don't seem to go together.

1. The Earth is young. There is no absolute clock with which to date
the Earth.

2. Heliocentricism is false; all of the interferometer evidence
disproves that the Earth is moving 30 km/sec around the sun or 200-400
km/sec around the Milky Way. The neoTychoan model might be true.

3. "Species" is a classification term; that is, an abstraction. And
there are so many different meanings associated with that term that
I'm not sure what diagnostic value it holds.

4. Individuals don't sprout and develop new biological systems or
structures to become completely different interbreeding populations.

5. Abiogenesis is false.

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> 1. The Earth is young. There is no absolute clock with which to date
> the Earth.

What about the rest of the universe? What's your position on the speed
of light?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/08/2012 05:06 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> 1. The Earth is young. There is no absolute clock with which to date
> the Earth.

How long has the light we see from Betelgeuse today been traveling in
your model? How far away is Betelgeuse?

> 2. Heliocentricism is false; all of the interferometer evidence
> disproves that the Earth is moving 30 km/sec around the sun or 200-400
> km/sec around the Milky Way. The neoTychoan model might be true.

Is your universe any larger than the orbit of Neptune? If so, how do you
account for the limitations of lightspeed? How far away is Betelgeuse
and how fast must it travel to fit into a geocentric universe? Would
Betelgeuse need to be travelling faster than lightspeed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

Is your universe shaped like a sloppy burrito, allowing for objects
orbiting the equator (with seasonal oscillation) to not exceed light
speed, where objects appearing near the poles (with axis offset( to be
relatively stationary, thus allowed to be further from Earth and not
exceed the constraint of lightspeed? If objects are constrained by
lightspeed, how far can they be from our equator versus the poles?

These are pressing questions that you need to get to work on and stop
babbling about quixotic victories.

> 3. "Species" is a classification term; that is, an abstraction. And
> there are so many different meanings associated with that term that
> I'm not sure what diagnostic value it holds.
>
> 4. Individuals don't sprout and develop new biological systems or
> structures to become completely different interbreeding populations.
>
> 5. Abiogenesis is false.

6. Tony hasn't been able to link to a post where I propose a false rule
of motion that misled Broccoli. He was defeated soundly (I gave him a 7
day countdown) and is now trying to sneak back without addressing that
issue. How does that crow taste Tony? Have you been digesting it slowly?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

It like everything else in the universe comes out of his arse (CoM).


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.

Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
method unreliable.

For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/

The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."

> "Old" may be only a few
> million years.

TenS of millions at a minimum.

Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.

> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.

Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.

> God can change them if he wants

I never said any such thing.

> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>

Again, I have never said any such thing.

> Tony is a YEC, I think. But he seldom is willing to commit himself to
> anything so concrete as a particular idea of age for anything.

Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
almost ready for publication.

Ray

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/9/2012 2:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
> Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
>
>> > God can change them if he wants
> I never said any such thing.
>
>> > and it's possible that Ray thinks new
>> > species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>> >
> Again, I have never said any such thing.
>

Would you be so kind as to tell us the bare bones of your version of the
history of life? I was under the impression that you do indeed believe
that God has created new species over the eons, and may perhaps be doing
so even now. Is it the word "alteration" that you reject?

[Burkhard]

On Apr 9, 7:09 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> > No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> method unreliable.
>
> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
>
> The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."

But none of this implies that carbon dating is unreliable. Quite on
the contrary, if this explanation is true, then the carbon date that
was established for the piece of cloth that was analysed was spot on.
That the cloth they were dating was younger than the main body of the
shroud has nothing to do with carbon dating as a methodology.

If you want an analogy: you tell someone to establish the hight of the
Eiffel Tower. He uses a meter and reports a height of 69m. later you
find that due to a confusion on his side, he measured Notre Dame, not
the Eiffel tower. That does not mean using a meter to establish height
is unreliable, it simply means you have to do it properly.

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> method unreliable.

Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".

> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/

> The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."

If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?

>> "Old" may be only a few
>> million years.
>
> TenS of millions at a minimum.
>
> Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.

So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
like, whatever it may be).

>> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
>
> Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.

It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.

>> God can change them if he wants
>
> I never said any such thing.

You disagree? God can't change species?

>> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
>> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>
> Again, I have never said any such thing.

The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
guess.

>> Tony is a YEC, I think. But he seldom is willing to commit himself to
>> anything so concrete as a particular idea of age for anything.
>
> Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
> almost ready for publication.

Cool.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<d331c85f-de62-45a8...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> >
> > No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> method unreliable.
>
> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."

*
If I wanted to know something about electrochemical dating and its
accuracy, I would tend to prefer Brent Dalrymple's "Age of the Earth",
rather than something on the "Shroud of Turin" by an art historian.

Dalrymple's book explains in detail how electrochemical dating works and
how different methods serve to check up on each other.

De Wesselow is a Christian apologist now working full time to prove the
Shroud Of Turin is the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

Take your pick.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<d331c85f-de62-45a8...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

*
Coming from you, that "almost ready for publication" does sound familiar.

earle
*

[Frank J]

Pardon the late reply, but I'm still trying to get used to the new GG, and I don't feel like learning, or paying for, what all the geeks swear is better news-whatever.

Anyway, Pagano's reply makes it clear that he has signed on to the "don't ask, don't tell" scam. He said "young" but without a *number* he's just jerking you around. The geocentrism is interesting, but if you view these people as *peddlers* of pseudoscience and superstition as opposed to believers (yes they could be both, but focus on the scamming, not the belief), he's much like Behe with his concession of common descent. Mike and Tony "bracket" opposite ends of the big tent, with radically different ideas on where to push the envelope as far as one can, while keeping the peace in the big tent.

In any case I vaguely recall Pagano going from YEC to OEC about 5-6 years ago. But like all people who keep trying to force-fit the evidence into one of the popular, mutually contradictory "creationist" positions, and finding that (1) it doesn't fit any, and (2) advocates of the those positions refuse to come to a consensus, he finds it irresistable to gravitate to "don't ask, don't tell."

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <d331c85f-de62-45a8...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
>
>Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.

BS. Here is just one list of people who proposed some form of
descent with alteration prior to Darwin:

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html

Most notably, Erazamus Darwin wrote about a common ancestor to all life
(I don't know if he meant all animal life, or *all* life) with speciation
driven by competition and sexual selection back in 1794. However, he
lacked data, which his grandson Charles would spend many years collecting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:09:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> > I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
>> > remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
>> > the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
>>
>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.

>Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
>beforehand and carbon dating fails

Carbon dating, although a type of radiometric dating, is not
used to determine the age of anything not of biological
origin; it's useless in determining the age of the Earth.

>one cannot help to conclude the
>method unreliable.

>For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
>see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
>by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
>
>The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
>the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
>supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
>Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."

Misapplication of a method does not refute the validity of
the method. And a single such misapplication does not
indicate that valid applications haven't been performed, or
that most such applications were not indeed valid.
*Properly* done, carbon dating has never (AFAIK) failed to
agree with other data.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Frank J]

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 5:06:10 PM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
> >remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
> >the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> 1. The Earth is young. There is no absolute clock with which to date
> the Earth.

It's certainly young compared to the universe.

So what would you say was the calculated age of earth, universe, and first life on earth according to the "clock" that is accepted by most OECs and IDers?

>
> 2. Heliocentricism is false; all of the interferometer evidence
> disproves that the Earth is moving 30 km/sec around the sun or 200-400
> km/sec around the Milky Way. The neoTychoan model might be true.
>
> 3. "Species" is a classification term; that is, an abstraction. And
> there are so many different meanings associated with that term that
> I'm not sure what diagnostic value it holds.

Do you think "kinds" is more rigorous?

>
> 4. Individuals don't sprout and develop new biological systems or
> structures to become completely different interbreeding populations.
>
> 5. Abiogenesis is false.

So what word do you use for all those "kinds" that YECs and many OECs claim sprouted within a few days' time?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Ray Martinez]

I'll get back to your questions ASAP.

Thanks for asking, but I thought all this was clear since I often
times sign my name "Old Earth Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist."

The problem here is not understanding the term "Paleyan" in proper
history of science context.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/09/2012 02:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
> almost ready for publication.

I've read the rough draft already:

http://webnews.usenetmonster.com/messaggio.php?num=426340&ng_id=37516



--
*Hemidactylus*

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> >>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> >>> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> >> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> >> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > method unreliable.
>
> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>

So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
no role in determining age of the Earth?

> > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"

> > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."

>
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
> > The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> > the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> > supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> > Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
>
> If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
>

Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
method is scientific, why the secrecy?

> >> "Old" may be only a few
> >> million years.
>
> > TenS of millions at a minimum.
>
> > Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
>
> So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?

How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
calendar time?

> You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
> inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
> like, whatever it may be).
>

I don't know what you're on about here.

> >> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
>
> > Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
>
> It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
> to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
>

An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
"immutable"?

I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
"fixism" or "permanence."

> >> God can change them if he wants
>
> > I never said any such thing.
>
> You disagree? God can't change species?
>

Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
Creationism.

> >> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> >> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>
> > Again, I have never said any such thing.
>
> The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
> guess.
>

Ridiculous!

> >> Tony is a YEC, I think. But he seldom is willing to commit himself to
> >> anything so concrete as a particular idea of age for anything.
>
> > Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
> > almost ready for publication.
>
> Cool.

Agreed : )

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d331c85f-de62-45a8-8c20-645f0ec40...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > > I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > > remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > > the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
>
> > > No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > method unreliable.
>
> > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"

> > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."

>
> *
> If I wanted to know something about electrochemical dating and its
> accuracy, I would tend to prefer Brent Dalrymple's "Age of the Earth",
> rather than something on the "Shroud of Turin" by an art historian.
>
> Dalrymple's book explains in detail how electrochemical dating works and
> how different methods serve to check up on each other.
>

> DeWesselowis a Christian apologist now working full time to prove the

> Shroud Of Turin is the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
>
> Take your pick.
>
> earle
> *

Not so fast.

DeWesselow's thesis, concerning the Bible, is naturalistic.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

It was already published prematurely (I could make an premature
ejaculation joke here but I won't):

http://webnews.usenetmonster.com/messaggio.php?num=426340&ng_id=37516

Ray pulled this one out of Google too late. It had propagated to other
servers and remains as his unwanted child. He is pro-choice, so maybe I
should respect his wishes about attempting to abort his firstborn, but
this is just too pregnant with puns. I wonder if it will send him a
father's day card when it grows up after it learns to cope with the
rejection.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

Immutabilism says species (or populations) cannot change, thus it puts a
damper on an omnipotent deity's ability to have effects on things. Your
"permanence" above pre-empts God from doing anything about things as
they are. God is thus lessened to a being who operates within the
constraints of nature. If things are permanent, not even God can change
them.

Otherwise, if an all powerful deity can will species (or populations) to
change, why can't they change by natural processes, as the potential
thus exists for them to change by any means?

Fixism of species hampers God's will to change things. You doubt God's
power. He will not be happy and will hide himself from you, if this
hasn't happened already.

Any deity that exists must be consistent with the knowledge that allelic
frequencies in populations change over time, since evolution happens.
That deity must have built it into nature, be OK with it as a
consequence of design, or be powerless to stop it. It could be a
so-called law of nature, like gravity. I doubt you take issue with
gravity. Why is evolution by natural selection or genetic drift any
different?

But since evolution happens, one must wonder whether evolution is a
product of God or if God is a product of evolution. I think the latter
is true. God is a creation of an intelligent designer...us.

The Bible bubbled forth from the same fountain as all works of
literature. Human creativity is a curious thing to behold.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <8e07f66b-ef0f-4cf0...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>
>So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
>no role in determining age of the Earth?

Carbon dating certainly has no role in determining the age of the Earth.
Carbon dating works for organic material with ages ranging from a few
centuries to several millenia. It doesn't work on anthing millions of
years old, and it doesn't work on things that were never alive.

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
>>> method unreliable.
>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>>
>
> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> no role in determining age of the Earth?

Carbon dating and the age of fossils are two different things. But it's
correct that neither of them has any role in determining the age of the
earth.

>>> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
>>> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
>>> by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
>>> The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
>>> the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
>>> supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
>>> Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
>> If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
>
> Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
> method is scientific, why the secrecy?

The secrecy has to do with the shroud, not the method.

>>>> "Old" may be only a few
>>>> million years.
>>> TenS of millions at a minimum.
>>> Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
>> So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
>
> How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
> calendar time?

We have just established that it wasn't the technique that failed but
the sampling. And carbon dating should not be conflated with radiometric
dating as a class of methods.

>> You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
>> inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
>> like, whatever it may be).
>
> I don't know what you're on about here.

If you reject radiometric dating, which puts the age of the earth at
4.53 billion years, you must suppose that it's inaccurate by a huge
margin. If you think the earth is only tens of millions of years old,
say 50 million, you have to suppose that the radiometric date is 100
times, or two orders of magnitude, off from what it should be. Is that
indeed your claim?

>>>> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
>>> Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
>> It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
>> to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
>
> An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
> "immutable"?

I don't know what you, specifically, mean by it.

> I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
> Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
> observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
> comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
> "fixism" or "permanence."

Once again you refuse to clarify. One might almost think you had
something to hide.

>>>> God can change them if he wants
>>> I never said any such thing.
>> You disagree? God can't change species?
>
> Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
> Creationism.

Not the question. Again you dodge the question.

>>>> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
>>>> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>>> Again, I have never said any such thing.
>> The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
>> guess.
>
> Ridiculous!

And once again you decline the invitation to say what you mean.

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 27, 3:11 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
>

> --
> Please reply to:         | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> pciszek at panix dot com |  command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> Autoreply is disabled    |  will we ever.  Church and state are, and must
>                          |  remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

Paul: I accept species immutability, not Tony; he stands with you and
all other Atheists. I also accept an old Earth; Tony, like all
Fundamentalists, accepts a young Earth.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I told the Group plainly and forthrightly that the rough draft was
posted accidentally. I opted for deletion. Whatever power that
preserved the post did so without authorization. The post, in their
hands, becomes a revision, belonging to them, not me.

Since you are a computer geek with no understanding of ethics and
rights and privacy you won't understand. In plain English: the post is
not mine.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d331c85f-de62-45a8-8c20-645f0ec40...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Your dichotomy is completely false.

Shroud research has shown the image not the result of any paints or
dyes; rather, it was "burned" onto and into the linen; three
dimensional, one side only. And we know for a fact that carbon dating
does not work on linen.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Leaving aside for the moment the authenticity (giggle) of the shroud,
why doesn't carbon dating work on linen?

[Burkhard]

Of course carbon dating works in linen. Just as with any other method
though, you need to do it properly, and that means correct handling
procedures.

[Ray Martinez]

That's a good question. Someone could write a thick book answering the
question.

DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
date produced by the 1988 test.

Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
unreliable.

Ray

[John Harshman]

In other words, you have no support for that assertion.

> DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
> definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
> date produced by the 1988 test.

But the claim is that the linen tested wasn't the same age as the
shroud. Again, the claimed problem is with the sampling, not the method.

> Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
> age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
> the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
> unreliable.

Can you back up that claim about mummy linen? Where did you get it?

And let me remind you that carbon dating has nothing to do with the age
of the earth except to show that the age is greater than a few thousand
years.

[Ray Martinez]

No, I'm saying that you must do your own homework in this area. Below
I provide allusions to some facts that say the method does not work on
linen.

> > DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
> > definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
> > date produced by the 1988 test.
>
> But the claim is that the linen tested wasn't the same age as the
> shroud. Again, the claimed problem is with the sampling, not the method.
>

Then why won't your colleagues in modern science make the same
distinction? Their position is, based on the 1988 test results, the
Shroud is a Medieval fake.

> > Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
> > age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
> > the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
> > unreliable.
>
> Can you back up that claim about mummy linen? Where did you get it?
>

In DeWesselow's book, the chapter titled "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
His book is now on the shelves in all major chain bookstores.

> And let me remind you that carbon dating has nothing to do with the age
> of the earth except to show that the age is greater than a few thousand
> years.

No comment.

Ray

[jillery]

It's not clear what you mean by one side only. Whatever you mean,
it's likely not relevant to the validity of radiocarbon dating. But
since you mention it, the Shroud depicts the front and back side of a
man in modest repose. Also, there is an image on the front and
reverse side of the cloth, although the reverse image is much fainter.
This second image was unknown until relatively recently because it was
coverd by a backing cloth.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/second-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin-faq.htm

http://tinyurl.com/bvlw86d

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 11, 11:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

No paints or dyes, image is burned onto and into the cloth, three
dimensional, one side only, exhibiting thickness where it actually
touches the face (nose) and thinness where it does not touch the face
(eye sockets).

What's your explanation of these facts?

Ray

[John Harshman]

Allusions don't help.

>>> DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
>>> definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
>>> date produced by the 1988 test.
>> But the claim is that the linen tested wasn't the same age as the
>> shroud. Again, the claimed problem is with the sampling, not the method.
>
> Then why won't your colleagues in modern science make the same
> distinction? Their position is, based on the 1988 test results, the
> Shroud is a Medieval fake.

Neither of us is responsible for what other, unspecified people say. Why
bring it up? Do you agree or disagree with what I said?

>>> Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
>>> age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
>>> the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
>>> unreliable.
>> Can you back up that claim about mummy linen? Where did you get it?
>
> In DeWesselow's book, the chapter titled "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> His book is now on the shelves in all major chain bookstores.

I'm not buying it -- the book or your claim. Feel free to quote, with
references.

>> And let me remind you that carbon dating has nothing to do with the age
>> of the earth except to show that the age is greater than a few thousand
>> years.
>
> No comment.

Why? Isn't the age of the earth what we were talking about when you went
off on this irrelevant tangent?

[John Harshman]

I am not interested in arguing about the shroud of Turin.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:39:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

So Tony's a Fundamentalist Atheist?

[Earle Jones]

In article <4rydneG1ldzDZhnS...@giganews.com>,

*
Ray allows God to create different species any way he wants to -- except
by evolution.

earle
*

[Ray Martinez]

The line of evidence that dates previously living things has no role
in the determination of the age of the Earth?

You've contradicted yourself with an exception (stated above).

How old is life on Earth?

No role?

The point is: based on the totality of facts concerning the 1988
Shroud dating event and other events involving mummy linen, carbon
dating is unreliable, a collossal failure. DeWesselow's arguments
undermine the entire discipline----no wonder you don't want anything
to do with his book.

Moving along....

Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?

No role?

We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
the line.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Correct. Earth is considerably older than life.

> You've contradicted yourself with an exception (stated above).
>
> How old is life on Earth?
>
> No role?

None whatsoevever, unless you think that life is only a few thousand
years old. In that case, carbon dating can tell you you're wrong.

> The point is: based on the totality of facts concerning the 1988
> Shroud dating event and other events involving mummy linen, carbon
> dating is unreliable, a collossal failure. DeWesselow's arguments
> undermine the entire discipline----no wonder you don't want anything
> to do with his book.
>
> Moving along....
>
> Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?

No. Rocks date fossils, and radiometric dating dates the rocks. Fossils
can however be used to correlate strata, and thus match up radiometric
dates from one locality to dates in another.

> No role?

None. And of course carbon-14 has nothing to do with any of this.

> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> the line.

That's a paranoid fantasy. So now we're suddenly from "linen can't be
dated by C-14" to "therefore no radiometric dating method can work"?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<33d665e3-3e36-42a9...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

> The line of evidence that dates previously living things has no role
> in the determination of the age of the Earth?
>
> You've contradicted yourself with an exception (stated above).
>
> How old is life on Earth?
>
> No role?
>
> The point is: based on the totality of facts concerning the 1988
> Shroud dating event and other events involving mummy linen, carbon
> dating is unreliable, a collossal failure. DeWesselow's arguments
> undermine the entire discipline----no wonder you don't want anything
> to do with his book.
>
> Moving along....
>
> Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?
>
> No role?
>
> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> the line.
>
> Ray

*
And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
miles per gallon (of WATER!).

But the oil companies won't let him sell it.

earle
*

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > >>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > >>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > >>> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> > >> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > >> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
> >
> > > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > method unreliable.
> >
> > Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
> >
>
> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> no role in determining age of the Earth?
>

I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing strange.

Hint: you wouldn't use carbon dating to age anything out beyond about 50K years (half-life of C14 is too short). In other words, all carbon dating has to say about the age of the Earth is that it must older than the dated age of the sample.

Conversely, carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils older than around 50K years for the reason above. However, there are many other radiometric methods available that are reliable over hundreds to thousands of millions of years when applied to igneous rocks found in association with fossils. These methods do not directly date the fossil but provide an inference of the fossil's age by reference to the nearest datable igneous intrusion. The "age of the fossil" simply puts a stake in the ground that reads "the Earth must be older than this nearby igneous rock".

In other words, if you want to get an estimate of the age of the Earth, you actually don't need fossils at all. Just use radiometric dating to find the oldest igneous rocks. The Earth must be at least as old as those rocks.

But I assume you know this already.

> > > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> > > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
> > > The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> > > the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> > > supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> > > Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
> >
> > If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
> >
>
> Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
> method is scientific, why the secrecy?
>

The dating method is scientific and accurate (presumably), the sampling method was (apparently) not scientific. Hence the (apparently) nonsense result.

> > >> "Old" may be only a few
> > >> million years.
> >
> > > TenS of millions at a minimum.
> >
> > > Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
> >
> > So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
>
> How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
> calendar time?
>

But they don't fail, when properly applied.

> > You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
> > inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
> > like, whatever it may be).
> >
>
> I don't know what you're on about here.
>
> > >> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
> >
> > > Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
> >
> > It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
> > to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
> >
>
> An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
> "immutable"?
>
> I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
> Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
> observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
> comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
> "fixism" or "permanence."
>

I understand what I mean by the terms, but I'm still unsure what you mean by them.

> > >> God can change them if he wants
> >
> > > I never said any such thing.
> >
> > You disagree? God can't change species?
> >
>
> Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
> Creationism.
>

You avoided his point. He is asking about potential cause of change, not whether change occurs. Nice evasion, but inadmissable.

> > >> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> > >> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
> >
> > > Again, I have never said any such thing.
> >
> > The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
> > guess.
> >
>
> Ridiculous!
>

Actually, very germane. You define terms to suit yourself, but never share what the definition might be.

[Steven L.]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33d665e3-3e36-42a9...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

Carbon-14 has a half-life of less than 6,000 years. That's not going to
be useful to date artifacts that go back hundreds of millions of years.
Other radioisotopes with much longer half-lives are used.

> Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?

There are plenty of rock strata without any fossils whose dates have
been accurately determined. Notice that geologists have been able to
accurately date rocks retrieved from the Moon via space probes, even
though the Moon has always been lifeless.

> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> the line.

Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.



-- Steven L.

[chris thompson]

On Apr 12, 1:01 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article

> <33d665e3-3e36-42a9-bc53-6101df07b...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

And the international Big Pharm conspiracy is suppressing the cure for
AIDs.

Chris

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 12, 8:10 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
immune from protecting their careers at all costs.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > >>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > >>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > >>> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> > > >> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > >> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> > > > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > > method unreliable.
>
> > > Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>
> > So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> > no role in determining age of the Earth?
>
> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
>

The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
big scheme.

Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
everything, making discussion impossible.

> Hint: you wouldn't use carbon dating to age anything out beyond about 50K years (half-life of C14 is too short). In other words, all carbon dating has to say > about the age of the Earth is that it must older than the dated age of the sample.
>

So there is a role? contradicting previous claims about no role
whatsoever.

You guys need to get your story straight. Why don't you email John
Harshman?

> Conversely, carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils older than around 50K years for the reason above.

What's the point?

> However, there are many other radiometric methods available that are reliable over hundreds to thousands of millions of years when applied to igneous
>rocks found in association with fossils. These methods do not directly date the fossil but provide an inference of the fossil's age by reference to the nearest > datable igneous intrusion. The "age of the fossil" simply puts a stake in the ground that reads "the Earth must be older than this nearby igneous rock".
>

Again, what's the point?

> In other words, if you want to get an estimate of the age of the Earth, you actually don't need fossils at all. Just use radiometric dating to find the oldest >igneous rocks. The Earth must be at least as old as those rocks.
>
> But I assume you know this already.
>

We know your dating techniques are unreliable. I have discussed this
with John Harshman in the past. Like all evos he is very sensitive and
touchy when anyone dares to establish the unreliability of dating
techniques.

>
>
>
>
> > > > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> > > > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
> > > > The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> > > > the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> > > > supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> > > > Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
>
> > > If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
>
> > Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
> > method is scientific, why the secrecy?
>
> The dating method is scientific and accurate (presumably), the sampling method was (apparently) not scientific. Hence the (apparently) nonsense result.
>

We who challenge the presumption know differently. The process
concerning the Shroud dating event was very unscientific, involving
secrecy and Vatican hierarchy. Yet the physicists who announced the
test results, and their supporters, point to the test as proving the
Shroud a Medieval fake. These persons do not admit any problems,
including the fact that researchers have traced the Shroud to exist
well before the Medieval date produced by carbon dating.

> > > >> "Old" may be only a few
> > > >> million years.
>
> > > > TenS of millions at a minimum.
>
> > > > Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
>
> > > So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
>
> > How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
> > calendar time?
>
> But they don't fail, when properly applied.
>

Anyone can do a little research and discover the known age of certain
materials not corroborated by dating techniques. What is it that you
don't understand?

>
>
>
>
> > > You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
> > > inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
> > > like, whatever it may be).
>
> > I don't know what you're on about here.
>
> > > >> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
>
> > > > Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
>
> > > It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
> > > to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
>
> > An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
> > "immutable"?
>
> > I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
> > Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
> > observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
> > comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
> > "fixism" or "permanence."
>
> I understand what I mean by the terms, but I'm still unsure what you mean by them.
>

Go ahead, tell me what you understand the terms to mean?

> > > >> God can change them if he wants
>
> > > > I never said any such thing.
>
> > > You disagree? God can't change species?
>
> > Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
> > Creationism.
>
> You avoided his point. He is asking about potential cause of change, not whether change occurs. Nice evasion, but inadmissable.
>

You have misunderstood. John Harshman attempted to say that I believe
what any ordinary Christian Evolutionist on the street believes
concerning species. The attempt is seen when he misportrayed my
position as accepting God can change species. Special Creation doesn't
allow any change since the concept presupposes each species to be
special creations.

> > > >> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> > > >> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
>
> > > > Again, I have never said any such thing.
>
> > > The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
> > > guess.
>
> > Ridiculous!
>
> Actually, very germane. You define terms to suit yourself, but never share what the definition might be.
>

Completely untrue.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight. I seem to
>>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist. Is that
>>>>>>> the case? Those two don't seem to go together.
>>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
>>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
>>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
>>>>> method unreliable.
>>>> Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>>> So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
>>> no role in determining age of the Earth?
>> I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
>>
>
> The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
> big scheme.
>
> Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
> everything, making discussion impossible.

No we aren't.

[Burkhard]

Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

[John Harshman]

I'm sorry, do you want the five minute argument or the full half hour/

[Walter Bushell]

In article <earle.jones-20D4...@news.giganews.com>,

Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>
> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.

Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <earle.jones-20D4...@news.giganews.com>,
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>
>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>
>Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.

My grandfather heard about this.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
"Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.

[Mike Painter]

On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4...@news.giganews.com>,
>>> Earle Jones<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>
>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>
>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>
>>
>> My grandfather heard about this.
>
> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.

Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?

I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
did not accept it.,

[John Harshman]

I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind
turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the
turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller
in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:49:28 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Mike Painter wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>>> Earle Jones<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car
>>>>>> 1,000
>>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>>
>>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>>
>> Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
>> front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?

.

>> I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
>> enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
>> strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
>> did not accept it.,
>>
>I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind
>turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the
>turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller
>in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?

If the electricity was stored, then directly against the wind, for
awhile at least. The headwind could also be used to recharge the
battery, almost canceling the additional resistance/drag created by the
air foils.

Then sea anchors to hold the ship (nearly) in place while the batteries
recharged - and so on.

All this without violating any of Newton's Laws !!


--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <7aCdnXUP0cw...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind
>turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the
>turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller
>in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?

I don't see any reason you couldn't sail directly upwind. I am certain
that a wheeled vehicle on land could travel upwind this way.

--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[osugeography]

On Apr 13, 7:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Mike Painter wrote:
> > On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared

> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
> >>> wrote:
>

> >>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,
> >>>> Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net>  wrote:

>
> >>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car
> >>>>> 1,000
> >>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>
> >>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>
> >>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>
> >>> My grandfather heard about this.
>
> >> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
> >> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>
> > Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
> > front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?
>
> > I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
> > enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
> > strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
> > did not accept it.,
>
> I'm presuming that instead of a propeller you're talking about a wind
> turbine. Let's consider one on a ship, on a pivot mount, with the
> turbine driving (perhaps mechanically, perhaps electrically) a propeller
> in the water. How close could you sail to the wind?

I remember a picture of a sailing ship, probably circa 1900 or so,
with a windmill on deck to pump out the bilges of a wooden ship with
considerable hogging. Coastal routes only, I believe.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 12, 6:34 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <earle.jones-20D4F5.22014911042...@news.giganews.com>,

>  Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
> > miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>
> > But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>
> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.

So did I, and I'm 62.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:05:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net>:

>On 4/13/2012 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:34:19 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<earle.jones-20D4...@news.giganews.com>,
>>>> Earle Jones<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I know a guy who invented a carbueretor that will get any car 1,000
>>>>> miles per gallon (of WATER!).
>>>>>
>>>>> But the oil companies won't let him sell it.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I heard about this when I was in high school.
>>>
>>>
>>> My grandfather heard about this.
>>
>> Change "carburetor" to "feed bucket" and "oil companies" to
>> "Big Grain" and I suspect the Hittites would recognize it.
>
>Weren't they the ones who invented big wheels in back and little ones in
>front so it would always run downhill and not need horses?

Nah, the Hittites were smarter than the average fundie.

But it sounds a bit like the Fabulous Hillside Snee...

>I once explained why a propeller on top of a car could not generate
>enough energy to drive the car to someone. When I ran down he gave me a
>strange look and said "That's exactly what Mike M said." But he still
>did not accept it.,

Assuming you mean a wind generator, it *could* generate
enough power to move the car, even upwind. Not very fast, of
course, and dependent on the wind strength and direction.
(In fact, if the wind velocity is high enough and from the
rear, the generator is unnecessary, although its wind
resistance would actually *increase* the speed of the car,
even discounting any power generated and used for
propulsion.)

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:42:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

A sail might be more effective.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:48:28 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

True, but a traditional sail couldn't provide the power to
run the sound system...

[Mark Isaak]

You probably would not be able to hear the sound system over the noise
of the windmill anyway.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Bob Berger]

In article <p2ejo7l1oh9tbhrg6...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman says...

Hmmm. Maybe TO could get a hundred million dollar government grant to develop
"green" sails. Headquarters would be near the beach in Hawaii, with frequent
staff meetings held in Las Vegas. (The GSA could give pointers on that).

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/12/12 1:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
>>> the line.
>>
>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
>>
>> -- Steven L.
>
> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.

Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and
then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was
wrong.

Ray, science, and scientists advance through challenging the status quo,
not supporting it blindly. Your libelous statements above have no
basis in reality.



DJT

[Free Lunch]

On 15 Apr 2012 13:35:51 -0700, Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote
in talk.origins:

What has happened to the Dean's Yacht, er, the university's research
vessel?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/11/12 11:47 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:50 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/09/2012 02:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [snip]

>>
>>> Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
>>> almost ready for publication.
>>

>> I've read the rough draft already:
>>
>> http://webnews.usenetmonster.com/messaggio.php?num=426340&ng_id=37516
>>
>> --
>> *Hemidactylus*
>
> I told the Group plainly and forthrightly that the rough draft was
> posted accidentally.


And "the Group" considered such a obvious falsehood like that with all
the respect it deserved.


> I opted for deletion.

Which has been explained to you before doesn't "delete" anything.



> Whatever power that
> preserved the post did so without authorization. The post, in their
> hands, becomes a revision, belonging to them, not me.

Ray, as has been explained to you before, Google is not USENET. Simply
deleting posts from Google Groups doesn't make them disappear, and you
don't get any control over your posts after you press 'send'.



>
> Since you are a computer geek with no understanding of ethics and
> rights and privacy you won't understand. In plain English: the post is
> not mine.


Ray, if you were interested in 'privacy' you wouldn't be posting in a
public forum like this. The post is your words, and you can't simply
pretend it doesn't exist. If you wish to post a revision, the original
still is visible to anyone who cares to look.

Your lack of understanding of how USENET works, and how the internet
works is not anyone elses problem but yours.


DJT

[Bob Berger]

In article <B4udnVARBYVxqRbS...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy says...

>
>On 4/12/12 1:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>snip
>
>>>
>>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
>>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
>>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
>>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
>>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
>>>
>>> -- Steven L.
>>
>> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
>> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
>
>Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and
>then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was
>wrong.

More to the point, what Ray fails to understand is that the failure of most
dating techniques is due to the lack of a good pickup line.

[Earle Jones]

In article <jmff9...@drn.newsguy.com>,

Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <B4udnVARBYVxqRbS...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy
> says...
> >
> >On 4/12/12 1:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >snip
> >
> >>>
> >>>> We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> >>>> DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> >>>> acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> >>>> validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> >>>> the line.
> >>>
> >>> Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
> >>> the truth. That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
> >>>
> >>> -- Steven L.
> >>
> >> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
> >> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.
> >
> >Imagine that: Ray throws out accusations which he can't back up, and
> >then insults thousands of working scientists rather than admit he was
> >wrong.
>
> More to the point, what Ray fails to understand is that the failure of most
> dating techniques is due to the lack of a good pickup line.

*
My favorite pickup line (Mississippi version):

"You know, for a fat girl, you don't sweat too much."

earle
*

[Walter Bushell]

Perhaps Wilkins can comment on this with his hard luck, he's certainly
had trouble with dating techniques.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Apr 15, 8:33 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <jmff910...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>  Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <B4udnVARBYVxqRbSnZ2dnUVZ5jSdn...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy

> *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I heard that quote from Mike Harding, the Northern English comedian,
before 1978.

[John S. Wilkins]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> Perhaps Wilkins can comment on this with his hard luck, he's certainly
> had trouble with dating techniques.

Well, I certainly can't recommend the use of radioactive isotopes. That
never turns out well. Especially slipped into drinks.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[727]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:33:38 -0700, Earle Jones wrote:

> My favorite pickup line (Mississippi version):

> "You know, for a fat girl, you don't sweat too much."

"You look like a transsexual I used to know" has a very
small chance of success I've found.

===
727
===

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kinfds.19lkiz190pqv4N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Wilkins can comment on this with his hard luck, he's certainly
> > had trouble with dating techniques.
>
> Well, I certainly can't recommend the use of radioactive isotopes. That
> never turns out well. Especially slipped into drinks.

Some people though will try *anything* to get a hot date.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jmgnki$421$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

It might work, if you're trying to pickup tranies.

[Steven L.]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73bfb25c-66ca-42fe...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 12, 8:10 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:33d665e3-3e36-42a9...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 11, 12:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > > > On Apr 11, 11:49 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > > >>> On Apr 11, 11:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> In article

> > > > >>>>>> <d331c85f-de62-45a8-8c20-645f0ec40...@ms3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >>>>>>  Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> > > > >>>>>>>> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > > >>>>>>>> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
> > > > >>>>>>> Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > > >>>>>>> beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > > >>>>>>> method unreliable.
> > > > >>>>>>> For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > > >>>>>>> see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"
> > > > >>>>>>> by Thomas De Wesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> > > > >>>>>> *
> > > > >>>>>> If I wanted to know something about electrochemical dating and its
> > > > >>>>>> accuracy, I would tend to prefer Brent Dalrymple's "Age of the Earth",
> > > > >>>>>> rather than something on the "Shroud of Turin" by an art historian.
> > > > >>>>>> Dalrymple's book explains in detail how electrochemical dating works and
> > > > >>>>>> how different methods serve to check up on each other.
> > > > >>>>>> De Wesselow is a Christian apologist now working full time to prove the
> > > > >>>>>> Shroud Of Turin is the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
> > > > >>>>>> Take your pick.
> > > > >>>>>> earle
> > > > >>>>>> *
> > > > >>>>> Your dichotomy is completely false.
> > > > >>>>> Shroud research has shown the image not the result of any paints or
> > > > >>>>> dyes; rather, it was "burned" onto and into the linen; three
> > > > >>>>> dimensional, one side only. And we know for a fact that carbon dating
> > > > >>>>> does not work on linen.
> > > > >>>> Leaving aside for the moment the authenticity (giggle) of the shroud,
> > > > >>>> why doesn't carbon dating work on linen?
> > > > >>> That's a good question. Someone could write a thick book answering the
> > > > >>> question.
> > > > >> In other words, you have no support for that assertion.
> >
> > > > > No, I'm saying that you must do your own homework in this area. Below
> > > > > I provide allusions to some facts that say the method does not work on
> > > > > linen.
> >
> > > > Allusions don't help.
> >
> > > > >>> DeWesselow is a very tenacious art historian and investigator. He has
> > > > >>> definitively traced the Shroud as existing well before the Medieval
> > > > >>> date produced by the 1988 test.
> > > > >> But the claim is that the linen tested wasn't the same age as the
> > > > >> shroud. Again, the claimed problem is with the sampling, not the method.
> >
> > > > > Then why won't your colleagues in modern science make the same
> > > > > distinction? Their position is, based on the 1988 test results, the
> > > > > Shroud is a Medieval fake.
> >
> > > > Neither of us is responsible for what other, unspecified people say. Why
> > > > bring it up? Do you agree or disagree with what I said?
> >
> > > > >>> Other examples: Archaeologists, from time to time, already know the
> > > > >>> age of a particular mummy linen. Carbon dating fails to confirm. In
> > > > >>> the eyes of objective persons these failures cast the technique
> > > > >>> unreliable.
> > > > >> Can you back up that claim about mummy linen? Where did you get it?
> >
> > > > > In DeWesselow's book, the chapter titled "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> > > > > His book is now on the shelves in all major chain bookstores.
> >
> > > > I'm not buying it -- the book or your claim. Feel free to quote, with
> > > > references.
> >
> > > > >> And let me remind you that carbon dating has nothing to do with the age
> > > > >> of the earth except to show that the age is greater than a few thousand
> > > > >> years.
> >
> > > > > No comment.
> >
> > > > Why? Isn't the age of the earth what we were talking about when you went
> > > > off on this irrelevant tangent?
> >
> > > The line of evidence that dates previously living things has no role
> > > in the determination of the age of the Earth?
> >
> > > You've contradicted yourself with an exception (stated above).
> >
> > > How old is life on Earth?
> >
> > > No role?
> >
> > > The point is: based on the totality of facts concerning the 1988
> > > Shroud dating event and other events involving mummy linen, carbon
> > > dating is unreliable, a collossal failure. DeWesselow's arguments
> > > undermine the entire discipline----no wonder you don't want anything
> > > to do with his book.
> >
> > Carbon-14 has a half-life of less than 6,000 years.  That's not going to
> > be useful to date artifacts that go back hundreds of millions of years.
> > Other radioisotopes with much longer half-lives are used.
> >
> > > Do not rocks date fossils, and fossils date rocks?
> >
> > There are plenty of rock strata without any fossils whose dates have
> > been accurately determined.  Notice that geologists have been able to
> > accurately date rocks retrieved from the Moon via space probes, even
> > though the Moon has always been lifeless.

> >
> > > We've been through this before, John. The same problems exposed by
> > > DeWesselow exist in radiometric dating. Scientists refuse to
> > > acknowledge the scale and gravity. It is a trade secret because the
> > > validity of heaps of publications, and careers and livelihood, are on
> > > the line.
> >
> > Don't stoop so low as to accuse scientists of a conspiracy to cover up
> > the truth.  That kind of paranoia is for cranks.
> >
> > -- Steven L.
>
> Imagine that; this person actually believes status quo scientists are
> immune from protecting their careers at all costs.

No, I don't believe that.

But I also don't believe that scientists are a monolithic corporate
body, engaged in some kind of collusion all towards a single end.



-- Steven L.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:05:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

You haven't been out much lately, have you? Some of the
sound systems out there can cause your ears to bleed...from
half a mile.

[Ray Martinez]

The reproduction of writing without authorization, especially writing
that has been withdrawn through the options available, renders said
reproductions, wherever these are found, to be unauthorized revisions,
fraudulent facsimiles. Your comments show no understanding of these
facts. You seem to think that because something appears on the
Internet that said appearance presupposes authorization and/or truth.
What's to stop any of your enemies from speaking in your name via
something that appears on the Internet? The question is rhetorical
since your unelightened opinions, seen above, stand no chance of ever
changing.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Anyone who actually takes the time to investigate the various dating
techniques discovers that these are unreliable; scientists know these
are unreliable, but suppress the fact for many obvious reasons.

Ray

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

This is a blatant lie like most of what you post. I know that you
think being dishonest is a virtue, but most people do not share that
opinion.

[Prof Weird]

In REALITY, the various dating techinques are quite reliable when done
correctly.

So of course creotards send petrified wood in for carbon dating, then
act surprised when it gives strange results.

If - as in your paranoid fantasies - scientists suppressed data
showing the dating techniques were unreliable, YOU'D HAVE NOTHING TO
SHOW THAT THE DATING TECHNIQUES WERE UNRELIABLE,
since they'd ensure no one could find the 'incriminating evidence' !

Every radiometrist everywhere would have to be as incompetent and
addle-brained as you are to leave evidence just lying around where
people like you could find it.

All of the dating techniques are rather expensive to do - no sane or
rational person would pay to use a technique known to be unreliable.
The ONLY reason anyone would pay to have them done
is if they knew they'd get usable information from the tests.

Unless, of course, you wish to assert that every single dating test
done to date used made-up numbers ? But if you can use made-up
numbers, there is no point going through the time or expense of having
radiometric
dating done - you could (like most IDiots, creotards and theoloons)
just pull numbers out of your nether regions and demand everyone
believe them.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 17, 12:45 pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"

I accept and argue for an old Earth.

Ray (OEC)

[Burkhard]

On Apr 12, 8:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:51 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > On Apr 9, 12:55 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > > > >>> I have trouble keeping our various creationists straight.  I seem to
> > > > >>> remember Pagano as being old-earth, but species-immutablist.  Is that
> > > > >>> the case?  Those two don't seem to go together.
> > > > >> No, that's Ray. And Ray's ideas of old-earth may not match the standard
> > > > >> views, since he rejects radiometric dating.
>
> > > > > Well, when archaeologists happen to know the age of a certain artefact
> > > > > beforehand and carbon dating fails, one cannot help to conclude the
> > > > > method unreliable.
>

> > > > Notice that you have conflated "radiometric dating" with "carbon dating".
>
> > > So carbon dating and the age of fossils is a line of evidence that has
> > > no role in determining age of the Earth?
>
> > I can only assume you are joking. Surely you must have picked up enough about the methods of radiometric dating to realise that your question is passing > strange.
>
> The point is these things have, at a minimum, an indirect role in the
> big scheme.
>
> Both you and John Harshman, contrary to what you claim, are nay-saying
> everything, making discussion impossible.
>
> > Hint: you wouldn't use carbon dating to age anything out beyond about 50K years (half-life of C14 is too short). In other words, all carbon dating has to say > about the age of the Earth is that it must older than the dated age of the sample.
>
> So there is a role? contradicting previous claims about no role
> whatsoever.

Do you think taking the liver temperature from a recently deceased
human (standard forensic method) to establish time of death is a
dating method to establish the age of the earth? It does tell you e.g.
that the person died probably three hours ago, so it tells you that
the world must be older than three hours.

Carbon dating is about as relevant as method for establishing the age
of the earth. Both measure how long in the past an event took place
and in that purely logical sense also give you a minimum age of the
earth - but as dating methods to establish the actual age, they are
both pretty useless and irrelevant.

>
> You guys need to get your story straight. Why don't you email John
> Harshman?
>
> > Conversely, carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils older than around 50K years for the reason above.
>
> What's the point?
>
><sniP>

[jillery]

Name one reason. They're so obvious, it should be easy for you,
right?

[Earle Jones]

In article
<489aee1b-925b-4774...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,

*
Right! And the 1,000 mile-per-gallon carburetor. Same thing.

Right, Ray?

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<4ef79fda-8289-439d...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

*
Why?

On what data to you accept the argument for an old earth? Your Bible
says that the world was created in six days. And the genealogy of Adam
and Eve and eventually Mary and Joseph and Jesus spanned about 6,000
years at most.

Where did you old-earth beliefs come from? Surely not the fossil
record! Surely not the background radiation (discovered by Arno Penzias
of Bell Labs.) Surely not the red shift.

Is the earth moving? Your friend Pagano says no. I believe you say
yes. How do you decide? In several places, the Bible says the earth is
immovable. Are you conflicted?

Ray, as I have told you before, I am now 81. (I just had a birthday.) I
won't be around forever. (By the way, you won't either!)

Produce something (just damn near anything) before I go on to my
heavenly reward.

Yours in Jesus' name.

earle
*

[timoth...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 6:51:53 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:45 pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
> <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 12:04 pm, Ray Martinez

Hang about - the most reliable evidence for an old Earth is radiometric dating. But you say the radiometric dating is unreliable. So why do you accept it?

[timoth...@gmail.com]

> You guys need to get your story straight. Why don't you email John
> Harshman?
>

I've had three unsuccessful attempts at posting an answer to this, Ray, which failed owing to the technical shortcomings of whatever widget I am trying to use, so I apologise for the tardiness.

I believe Le Grand Harshman and I are saying the same thing: measuring the age of fossils is irrelevant to measuring the age of the Earth because the accepted method for measuring the age of fossils (beyond the 50K year limit imposed by the short half-life of C14) is to use radiometric dating on igneous rocks "nearby" to the fossil. Hence, you don't need the fossil to date the age of the Earth, you just need the oldest rocks available, whether or not there are fossils stratigraphically nearby.

> > Conversely, carbon dating cannot be used to date fossils older than around 50K years for the reason above.
>
> What's the point?
>

You mentioned carbon dating in relation to the age of the Earth, not me.

> > However, there are many other radiometric methods available that are reliable over hundreds to thousands of millions of years when applied to igneous
> >rocks found in association with fossils. These methods do not directly date the fossil but provide an inference of the fossil's age by reference to the nearest > datable igneous intrusion. The "age of the fossil" simply puts a stake in the ground that reads "the Earth must be older than this nearby igneous rock".
> >
>
> Again, what's the point?
>

See above, if you want to date the Earth, sample and date igneous rocks. The oldest estimate will give you a minimum value of the age.

> > In other words, if you want to get an estimate of the age of the Earth, you actually don't need fossils at all. Just use radiometric dating to find the oldest >igneous rocks. The Earth must be at least as old as those rocks.
> >
> > But I assume you know this already.
> >
>
> We know your dating techniques are unreliable. I have discussed this
> with John Harshman in the past. Like all evos he is very sensitive and
> touchy when anyone dares to establish the unreliability of dating
> techniques.
>

As I mentioned elsewhere, if radiometric dating of igneous rocks is unreliable, then what basis do you have to say that the Earth is "old"?

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > For scathing criticism showing how unreliable carbon dating really is,
> > > > > see "The Sign: The Shroud Of Turin And The Secret Of The Resurrection"

> > > > > by Thomas DeWesselow, 2012: chp.13 "The Carbon Dating Fiasco."
> >
> > > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525953655/thedaibea-20/
> > > > > The 1988 dating event of the Shroud was anything but scientific, and
> > > > > the test samples were cut from a restored area, then under the
> > > > > supervision of one Cardinal and one representative of the British
> > > > > Museum, these were secreted behind closed doors for "packaging."
> >
> > > > If so, isn't that a problem with the sample rather than the method?
> >
> > > Yes, but the main thrust of the chapter undermines the method. If the
> > > method is scientific, why the secrecy?
> >
> > The dating method is scientific and accurate (presumably), the sampling method was (apparently) not scientific. Hence the (apparently) nonsense result.
> >
>
> We who challenge the presumption know differently. The process
> concerning the Shroud dating event was very unscientific, involving
> secrecy and Vatican hierarchy. Yet the physicists who announced the
> test results, and their supporters, point to the test as proving the
> Shroud a Medieval fake. These persons do not admit any problems,
> including the fact that researchers have traced the Shroud to exist
> well before the Medieval date produced by carbon dating.
>

I have no knowledge of what scientific protocol was followed in attempting to date the shroud, so it is difficult to answer any conspiracy theory you may want to propose.

My only point is that the method used to carbon-date a sample routinely provides results that correlate reliably from independent tests if properly applied. This tells you nothing about whether the sample is faked or not.

> > > > >> "Old" may be only a few
> > > > >> million years.
> >
> > > > > TenS of millions at a minimum.
> >
> > > > > Compared to 10,000 years or less, tens of millions of years is old.
> >
> > > > So how do you account for radiometric dates in the billions of years?
> >
> > > How can you feel secure in the billions when techniques fail within
> > > calendar time?
> >
> > But they don't fail, when properly applied.
> >
>
> Anyone can do a little research and discover the known age of certain
> materials not corroborated by dating techniques. What is it that you
> don't understand?
>

Don't know to what you are referring. Standard carbon-dating methods will include caveats such as "do not attempt to carbon-date living tissue" and "make sure that your sample doesn't come from an environment where C14 or C12 are differentially enhanced or leached. What are the "certain materials" to which you refer?

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You have to suppose that the methods are not just unreliable but
> > > > inaccurate by one or more orders of magnitude (depending on the age you
> > > > like, whatever it may be).
> >
> > > I don't know what you're on about here.
> >
> > > > >> And he thinks species are immutable by natural processes.
> >
> > > > > Yes, that was the position of science before Darwin published.
> >
> > > > It still isn't clear what you mean by "immutable". I've tried to get you
> > > > to deal with the ambiguity, but I think you like to hide inside it.
> >
> > > An admission that you doubt or don't know the meaning of the word
> > > "immutable"?
> >
> > > I find this very hard to believe. But I have always said that
> > > Evolutionists are completely and utterly brainwashed, so my
> > > observation receives support when you are unable to conceive and
> > > comprehend the thing known as "species immutability" also known as
> > > "fixism" or "permanence."
> >
> > I understand what I mean by the terms, but I'm still unsure what you mean by them.
> >
>
> Go ahead, tell me what you understand the terms to mean?

No, sorry - you go first. What do you mean by "species immutability", "fixism" or "permanence"? I ask because you seem to be particularly concerned about the definition of words.

>
> > > > >> God can change them if he wants
> >
> > > > > I never said any such thing.
> >
> > > > You disagree? God can't change species?
> >
> > > Evolution says species change, not God or Victorian Special
> > > Creationism.
> >
> > You avoided his point. He is asking about potential cause of change, not whether change occurs. Nice evasion, but inadmissable.
> >
>
> You have misunderstood. John Harshman attempted to say that I believe
> what any ordinary Christian Evolutionist on the street believes
> concerning species. The attempt is seen when he misportrayed my
> position as accepting God can change species. Special Creation doesn't
> allow any change since the concept presupposes each species to be
> special creations.
>

All I can say to this is that you seem to want to constrain the omnipotence of your deity. I am happy to stand back and wait for the thunderclap and flash of lightning. But I am also happy to leave the theology up to you.

>
> > > > >> and it's possible that Ray thinks new
> > > > >> species arise due to divine alteration of existing species.
> >
> > > > > Again, I have never said any such thing.
> >
> > > > The problem is that you have never said what you mean, so we all have to
> > > > guess.
> >
> > > Ridiculous!
> >
> > Actually, very germane. You define terms to suit yourself, but never share what the definition might be.
> >
>
> Completely untrue.
>

See above, please provide a simple language definition of "species immutability". Perhaps I missed it in your previous posts.

> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>
> >
> >
> > > > >> Tony is a YEC, I think. But he seldom is willing to commit himself to
> > > > >> anything so concrete as a particular idea of age for anything.

> >
> > > > > Tony is a YEC and Evolutionist; and "The Case Against Tony Pagano" is
> > > > > almost ready for publication.
> >

> > > > Cool.
> >
> > > Agreed : )
> >
> > > Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Since the facts are suppressed, where does the data come
from which shows the unreliability?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you've never taken any such time. You are merely repeating lies
that were told to you.

> scientists know these
> are unreliable, but suppress the fact for many obvious reasons.

You are lying about scientists now. That's "creationist honesty" for
you.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

But you lie to do it, and you have no rational basis for your "old
Earth" position. You "accept" the old Earth just because Gene Scott
told you to.

The Earth is old, but your "reasoning" for accepting it is badly flawed.



DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

When you post to a public USENET forum, you have given authorization to
reproduce the material. Furthermore, cancelling in Google Groups does
NOT withdraw the post from USENET. That's what I'm trying to tell you,
and you are too thickheaded to understand.

There's no fraud in automatic USENET readers reproducing what YOU put
out there.

> Your comments show no understanding of these
> facts.

The facts are that you can't "withdraw" something that's already
recorded in millions of places. You don't understand how the internet
works, and throwing a tantrum about it doesn't change anything.

> You seem to think that because something appears on the
> Internet that said appearance presupposes authorization and/or truth.

I don't see how you'd get that idea. I doesn't follow from anything
I've ever written. That something appears on the internet doesn't mean
it's true, but it also doesn't mean that something you don't like (such
as credible evidence of your "pastor" being a former porn star) must be
false.


However,the point here is when you post to a public forum, one that
gets recorded millions of places, you can't simply call it back.

If you didn't "authorize" the post, you should not have hit the "post"
button. Once of you've done that, you can't call "backsies".

> What's to stop any of your enemies from speaking in your name via
> something that appears on the Internet?

Nothing. People post forgeries all the time, and I couldn't do anything
about it. I would expect that people who are familiar with my writing
would recognize such forgeries for being forgeries.

However this isn't something your "enemies" said. This is your own
statements, which you foolishly let loose. Trying to disown your own
words doesn't make them go away. I'm pointing out to you the folly of
trying to pretend your post didn't exist.

> The question is rhetorical
> since your unelightened opinions, seen above, stand no chance of ever
> changing.

My opinions will change when I see evidence to change them. Unlike you,
Ray, my opinions are not immune from evidence. Your own question
above (which is not rhetorical) simply indicates your own lack of
morals. You lie constantly, so you imagine everyone else is as
dishonest as you are.


DJT

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:25:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

Realized that your assertion was the same as a post, visible
to all, claiming an inability to post, did you?

>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

Guess not...although it's really not a guess.

[Rolf]

I'll soon be 82. I have found so much exciting info lately that I haven't
got time to bother with t.o.
Much of the stuff is both new (to me) and very revolutionary wrt evolution.
But an idiot like Ray, who still thinks his Eureka-revelation that all he
need do is "to tear down the foundation laid by Darwin" will make the ToE
fall. What a moron. The ToE today is so much more than Darwins primitive
theory, there were quite a few things he didn't know - things that are very
imporant, and they won't go away regardless of what Ray might say about
Darwin.

But Ray has never bothered to crack open a science book, he thinks Darwin
was the first and last word on evolution.

Rolf