"I mostly engage in it so that like-minded people can benefit from my sources and experience to strengthen their witness. "
I've definitely been enjoying the discussion on this thread, especially the parts about dating. Thanks for your input.
It's amazing to me how science has gotten so corrupted these days to the point that supposition equates to reproducible data. Your comment "Experimental facts' are *only* valid for the time period covered by the experiments" seems absolutely obvious but is quite an affront to many scientists with their wild extrapolations. And the more you point this out, the more irate they become in their insistence that they only deal with the facts.
Yep.
I know I'm not going to convince those engaging in the debate.
It's good to know that others people are getting it, though.
That's my goal.
Thanks.
Meant to ping you on this.
A little quote mining from another list.
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as follows:'If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out-of-date," we just drop it.'" – T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology." [This source is from 1970.]
Indeed, most of the radiocarbon results are tossed out:
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators." – J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon." [This source is from 1977.]