Timantit

[TJT2]

Talkoriginistit näköjään levittelevät edelleenkin valheitaan
https://creation.com/carbon-14-diamonds-talkorigins

Kommenttiosuudessakin ihmetellään
x x x
Russell H., United States, 12 November 2016
I'm amazed that the skeptics are still giving the same tired old excuse of
"contamination" for the C-14 results over a decade after RATE answered them.
They should have known their excuse was bad from the fact that all the
fossils examined (over a hundred) have the same average C-14/C-12 ratio,
regardless of type, depth, or location throughout the world. The fact that
they are sticking to "contamination" means that they have no better
explanation.
x x
A. H., United Kingdom, 12 November 2016
This is a clear example of the ideological and pseudo scientific base within
which Talk Origins originates. If you wish to do science you are looking for
experimental evidence that falsifies your hypothesis.It is useless to
provide explanations for results which then undermine your whole dating
method.It is worse to say at the same time that there are null results which
'confirm' that there is no radiocarbon in diamonds, coal etc. . If your
'explanation 'doesn't explain the full range of results then your
'explanation' is inadequate.
x x
Errol B., Australia, 12 November 2016
Earlier this year, I was playing the sceptic with an atheist online & used
information from Creation Magazine / creation.com regarding radioisotope
dating of KNM ER 1470 & the Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina;
namely
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
http://creation.com/radiometric-backflip
In response, a faithful believer in evolution & deep time responded with a
copy & paste from Talk.Origins. A rudimentary study of their 'refutation'
indicated a use of assumptions, arbitrary assertions & circular reasoning.
They claimed certain dating methods are no longer used for certain rock
types because they yield incorrect ages. The methods that yield the expected
ages are obviously trustworthy... so there you have it
If there were any references to empirical scientific evidence supporting
their claims, it was well hidden.
x x x

Btw, ettei vaan tuo "A. H., United Kingdom" olisi (entinen) evotoverinne
AnttiH?? Hänhän käytti toisinaan pelkkiä nimikirjaimia, ja luikki debatista
karkuun sillä tekosyyllä, että on hommia UK:ssa... (Stenberille kertauksena,
että YK ja UK ovat edelleenkin kaksi täysin eri asiaa).

--
--TJT--
Sorry, evolutionists, you were wrong all the time.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com