Re: Bias in Science, Part 2

Ed,

    True, if Baumgardner had claimed that his paper intended to be
comprehensive and address all C-14 dating issues, these items should have
been discussed. But in pretending to be a "peer-reviewer", it really is
necessary only to take the paper at its face value and focus on what it
portends to do. In this case, the intent was to explain the measured values
of C-14 in several organic samples and a few samples of diamond. If that is
done fairly and squarely, the other issues can be discussed in subsequent
articles. It is unnecessary to demand that all examples of C-14 dating be
addressed in one paper. Unfortunately, the authors do go on to make
sweeping claims about "uniformitarian assumptions" which would require a lot
more substantiation than a few C-14 measurements.

    Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Babinski" <ebabinski2002@yahoo.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Randy Isaac"
<rmisaac@bellatlantic.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Bias in Science, Part 2

> ED: Excellent post Randy!
>
> To add to it, shouldn't Baumgartner first attempt to
> explain away the three independent 14C-dated tree-ring
> series (every fifth ring or so in the series having
> been individually 14C-dated)? On the the basis of
> studying those three tree-ring series, and the
> individually dated tree rings in each series, the
> validity of 14C-dating up to 12,000 years ago has even
> been accepted by Baumy's fellow YEC, Aardsma. (Google
> Aardsma and tree ring.) Even better, shouldn't Baumy
> tackle the individually-dated varves in that lake in
> Japan that reach back even further, into the tens of
> thousands of years? By what miracle are the specific
> 14C ratios of three independent tree-ring series and
> the varves of an ancient lake, all able to match up
> closely with the one-per-year average? What are the
> ODDS of such matches occuring by chance? YECists don't
> seem capable of attacking the BEST evidence, they just
> make up experiments as they go along, ignoring known
> ranges of error and known sources of error.
>
> -------------
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
Received on Mon May 30 19:44:56 2005