Would you rather base your world view on one or two outlier points, or on the overwhelming trend of millions of data points that all fit and are consistent with each other? ***Excellent point. There are so many who simply do not examine the wide range of evidence. As a ferinstance, Jojo points out that Jesus was God Himself. How many Vorts know that it is historically provable that Jesus claimed to be God Himself? (I know, I know, that's not proof that He was God. It is proof, historical proof, that He claimed to be God and was put to death because of that claim. It is sad that I have to write this.) The answer is that not many have examined the evidence. Most have only examined the outlier evidence that conforms to their world view.
So, for those who want to examine such evidence... http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Ghost-Christian-university-curriculum/dp/0310357616 Yup. Just two books, well written, easy to understand. Not like trying to understand the science of radiometric nuclide dating. Or LENR. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/08/2014 12:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > > ...It is the inherent unreliability and irreproducibility of the methods > themselves that is causing a lot of controversy. > > I don't know why you think radio-nucleotide dating is unreliable (unless > you only listen to the YECs!). Take a look at figure 1 in the IntCal13 > publication > <https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16947/pdf> > (and the rest if you are interested). You should appreciate that this is a > *calibration* curve - ie the date is not determined from the C14 ratio, but > the date is determined by *independent* means (ie counting tree rings, > counting varves, measuring distance and assuming constant growth rate, > etc). This is then plotted against the age obtained by blind use of C14 > decay assuming an initial percentage at the current value. Don't you think > it is remarkable that all those thousands of measurements by so many > different methods all agree so well that we can *calibrate* the C14 ratio > vs age from them! > > Would you rather base your world view on one or two outlier points, or on > the overwhelming trend of millions of data points that all fit and are > consistent with each other? The standard approach of science is to trust > the vast body of data that agrees with itself and toss out the few outliers > that cannot be fitted in because something must have been wrong with the > assumptions or measurement in those cases. > > Egregious examples like a piece of leather from a shoe made in the > 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago; > > I wonder if you could provide a reference to this case as it sounds rather > interesting. It is easy to see how contamination can give a young age for > an old sample, but difficult to see what process can produce the opposite > effect! (The person who's shoe it was didn't happen to be abducted by a > UFO by any chance did they?!) > > > really are the reasons why radionucleotide dating techniques can not > trusted. I am not opposed to radionecleotide dating techniques because I > am religious. Au contraire, I am opposed to it because it is so unreliable. > > What if you really took a good look at the bulk of the data - not just the > few YEC outliers - and saw just how amazingly consistent and reliable it > is. Would you still be opposed to it? I suspect you would and I suspect > the reason would be one akin to love. But if you love the truth above all > else then you should have courage to follow even when she would lead you > out of your comfort zone! > >
