"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Subduction Zone]

That wasn't a mistake.

I've used it before, and I'll use it again until it goes out of vogue.

After all, "trinity" is also a near-obsolete term now, in favor of "triunity."

But I still use "trinity" for the sake of not having to be pedantic.

You probably will. Sadly you do not seem to want to learn from your mistakes.

And I am happily totally unaware of this "trinity 'triunity'" controversy.

ETA: And you did make a mistake. I explained your mistake to you.

 

[RickG]

The strength of evidence is also based on the assumptions the theory is based on. Can you list the assumptions the dating techniques are based on. I once read a list of 20 such assumptions.

It depends upon the dating method and technique(s) used. Creationists did not come up with their own list of assumptions. You can look in any geochemistry or dating methods textbook, and along with how the methods work and their applications, is included a list of "problems". In all cases in the creation science literature they dwell on those problems. What they do not mention is how each of those problems are detected, understood, and avoided. They also like to dwell on outdated methods no longer used or describe them in an application for which they are not appropriate for. We also see a lot of dating methods criticized by creationists who have absolutely no academic background or experience. One particular article I have come across lately is by Shawn D. Pitman, M.D.. He actually does a pretty good job of describing some of the methods and is quite convincing to the "layman". What he fails to conclude is the meat and potatoes of those methods. That is, how samples are taken, prepared, and processed. How all possible problems in that process are detected, and avoided. Thus, Dr. Pitman, performs "intellectual dishonesty" by performing only what appears to support his position, while omitting everything that does not support his position. Now tell me, would you go to a geochronology lab to be examined by a geochemist for a medical check up?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

One particular article I have come across lately is by Shawn D. Pitman, M.D

I suppose that you are referring to Dr. Sean Pitman!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Now tell me, would you go to a geochronology lab to be examined by a geochemist for a medical check up?

I have seen Dr. Sean Pitman debate a well trained scientist and win.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen Dr. Sean Pitman debate a well trained scientist and win.

My great nephew can debate a well-trained scientist and win.

The scientist just wouldn't know it.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

My great nephew can debate a well-trained scientist and win.

The scientist just wouldn't know it.

But laymen like myself would know it!

 

[AV1611VET]

But laymen like myself would know it!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

And what is UCR?

UCR stands for University of California.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

If you want to you can learn how the science is done and read the peer reviewed articles on how they did their work for yourself.

Peer reviewed often means reviewed by evolutionists.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Why?

Because science has been wrong more than once. Besides, science does not take into account the evidence from supernatural events like those recorded in the Bible. Science discounts, for example, the testimony of witnesses regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Most of the so called assumptions are not assumptions.

I had in mind a list of over 20 scientific assumptions Dr. Erwin Taylor, an avowed evolutionist and UCR professor, founder of the UCR dating lab, used as an introduction to the scientific dating techniques.

 

[RickG]

Peer reviewed often means reviewed by evolutionists.

That's absurd. The fields of geochemistry and geochronology have nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with chemistry and physics. Peer review means reviewed by experts in specific fields.

 

[RickG]

Because science has been wrong more than once. Besides, science does not take into account the evidence from supernatural events like those recorded in the Bible. Science discounts, for example, the testimony of witnesses regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Simply put, science does not investigate the supernatural because it cannot observe the supernatural.

 

[RickG]

I suppose that you are referring to Dr. Sean Pitman!

Yes, and as I previously described, he failed to include in his material how said problems are known and avoided.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Did you get your list from a reputable source?

Yes, I got this from Dr. Erwin Taylor, a UCR professor, author of the textbook he uses in his lectures at said university when teaching scientific dating techniques.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Simply put, science does not investigate the supernatural because it cannot observe the supernatural.

But science does investigates historical facts and the testimony of witnesses. The same is true about criminal court cases.

 

[lasthero]

I had in mind a list of over 20 scientific assumptions Dr. Erwin Taylor, an avowed evolutionist and UCR professor, founder of the UCR dating lab, used as an introduction to the scientific dating techniques.

Link? I tried looking it up, but could find no such list.

But science does investigates historical facts and the testimony of witnesses. The same is true about criminal court cases.

Eyewitness testimony is generally considerd one of the weakest forms of evidence in a court case.

 

[RickG]

Link? I tried looking it up, but could find no such list.



Eyewitness testimony is generally considerd one of the weakest forms of evidence in a court case.

The other day I ran across a site that appeared to an .edu address. In a way it was, but it was a students page, therefore a bit misleading to the authenticity of the content.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen Dr. Sean Pitman debate a well trained scientist and win.

You probably have not. You may have seen him debate a scientist, I doubt if you saw him win.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I got this from Dr. Erwin Taylor, a UCR professor, author of the textbook he uses in his lectures at said university when teaching scientific dating techniques.

And since you cannot supply this supposed list it is worthless. As I explained earlier many of the "assumptions" are probably not assumptions. Did you not understand my explanation? Slow down a bit and try to answer questions rather than simply making unsupported claims.