So that makes bias ok? I don't think so. The problem is that the bias
among the young-earthers is so insidious that when they are presented with
clear evidence against their view, they then claim that they can't trust
the evolutionary scientist who generated the data, but they won't go look
for themselves. It is the perfect epistemological position to innoculate
the individual from any and all data.
>
>> you have said is that all evolutionists are liars. What a terrible way to
>> start a conversation with an evolutionist.
>
>No, I didnt' say all Evolutionists are liars. I said that I don't trust
>them (maybe sometimes there's no difference.)
I personally see little difference. If they say something and you don't
trust what they say, you are in effect saying that they are lying to you.
But, as I made clear, I don't
>believe that any reviewers would let pass anything that is embarrasing to
>the Evolution model nor do I think it likely that any wanna-be-respected
>researcher would even attempt to publish dates that would make his peers
>"dis" him.
Bull. Take a look at the following articles. This is a case where a
researcher reported on set of dates which were then proven wrong.
Corrections like this happen all the time. Both groups of researchers are
evolutionists. Which one do you not believe? The one that disagrees with
you?
"While some electrons require only a few minutes of sunlight to be
bleached, or freed from their traps (the easy-to-bleach signal), others
need hours or even days of ultraviolet light (the hard-to-bleach signal).
If soil was blown into the site by the wind, the minerals probably did see
enough light to be entirely bleached, says Huntley. But sediment deposited
by a river or glacial outflow may not have been thoroughly bleached. As a
result, the luminescence age it yields will be misleadingly old." ~ Ann
Gibbons, "Doubts Over Spectacular Dates," Science 278(Oct 10, 1997), p.
220-222, p. 221
**
"'The trouble with the site is the date that was published based on the
assumption that the quartz got fully bleached,' says Feathers, who is
working to correct the problems with the OSL dating, which is better than
TL at measuring the more reliable, easy-to-bleach signal. Hornyak, however,
has said he is 'very confident' of the TL dates because repeated tests on
the sediments have yielded the same result.'"
Rubble Trouble
"A problem of a different sort is undermining the TL dates on sediments at
the Jinmium rock shelter; pebbles of crumbly sandstone from the boulder
wall or bedrock jumbled into the dated sediments. Because the rubble
;might not have been bleached at the same time as the sediments, it could
have thrown off the dates. 'Where there is rubble, there may be trouble,'
jokes Richard 'Bert' Roberts, a geochronologist at La Trobe University in
Bundoora, Australia, who has dated many of the earliest sites of human
occupation in Australia.
"Fullagar noted in his paper in Antiquity that although some of the layers
he dated contained rubble, none was found in the layer with the oldest
stone artifacts. Still, says Roberts, undetected grains from the wall of
the rock shelter or from the bedrock below the sediment layer could have
been mixed with the quartz that was dated. In a sample of 100 grains, he
says, it would take just two 250,000-year-old flecks of quartz to give an
overall date of 6000 years, even if the rest of the sample was just 1000
years old." ~ Ann Gibbons, "Doubts Over Spectacular Dates," Science
278(Oct 10, 1997), p. 220-222, p. 221
**
thermoluminescent dating
"'Above all, the ultimate test of a date is whether it can be reproduced by
an independent lab with access to the original site, because reassessment
of the geological context is critical,' adds geologist Jack Rink of
Canada's McMaster University," ~ Ann Gibbons, "Doubts Over Spectacular
Dates," Science 278(Oct 10, 1997), p. 220-222, p. 222
Richard G. Roberts, Rhys Jones, and M. A. Smith, "Thermoluminescence Dating
of a 50,000-year-old Human Occupation Site in Northern Australia," Nature,
345(1990), p. 153-156,
>
>> Then I presume that it also doesn't impress you when young-earth
>> creationists publish radioacative dates that are inconsistent. Fair is
>> fair.
>
>Right.
Then you have just said that neither correction of bad dates nor the
publication of consistent dates will impress you. You are not using
science to support your position, so I hope you don't call yourself a
scientific creationist.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm