Re: [asa] Kirk on C14 contamination

On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:

> Some may have seen the discussion led by Kirk on C14 on Theology
> Weband how Baumgardner responded (or rather didn't). The AIG
> website now deals with it http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/
> 2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination in a way which is very
> disparaging to Kirk. The comments are unjustified.

Just for the record, Baumgardner is correct that I mistyped
"Paleozoic" when it should have been "Precambrian", and that my use
of the term "graphitization" was a bit sloppy. (I oversimplified it
too much for those without a 14C background; in many places I should
have said "sample chemistry" to include pretreatment, conversion to
CO2, and graphitization). Other than these terminology issues, I
believe that all of my other technical points were correct.

It would have been nice to be able to reply on his AIG page to the
following challenge:
"Hence, Bertsche’s statement that “the differences [Baumgardner] sees
between geological and biological samples is simply the contamination
introduced by the graphitization process” is flatly unsupportable.
Dozens of papers in the peer-reviewed literature irrefutably
demonstrate this, as I point out in my chapter in the RATE book. If
Bertsche disagrees, let him clearly show why all these AMS
specialists are wrong!"

as I have already responded here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2147898&postcount=142

He's got an interesting response to dealing with the arguments that I
presented. Rather than dealing with the arguments on a professional
level, he turns his response into a personal attack. I think this
reveals something about both his arguments and his character.
Unfortunately, it will probably play just fine to the AIG faithful.

Kirk=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 19:36:13 2007