heh, from now on whenever I read one of your posts aamm, I'll picture you in this little number. 
Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
The level of civility dropped a while back and, like you, I drifted away. It amazes me that just because we don't agree that it means we can't talk about it. Coyote was the only reason I posted on this thread because I knew him to be intelligent, reasonable and great to talk with.
I don't think I've ever come onto a CREVO thread hoping that someone would change their mind because of something I said. but I;ve sure searched further and further to understand why I believe what I believe based on what others have said. Hasn't changed my mind, but has been one heck of a fun journey to delve deeper into areas that interest me. Isn't that what JR created FR for?
FReepgards,
K4
Also, try googling "Cynthia Irwin-Williams" in addition to Cynthia Williams.
Here are some additional links:
Review of the NBC Television Show "The Mysterious Origins of Man".
ping for acknowledgement, and reply later.
Cynthia's bio states she used uranium dating at the Mexico site. FYI. Would Steen have used it also? Again, like you said, why would they use that more expensive method and not the usual c-14? Stange.
From the little I read of the articles, Steen was a graduate student, while Cynthia Irwin-Williams ran the project and wrote the report. You might check www.bookfinder.com and see if you can find a copy of the report.
C14 doesn't work on rocks. The sample material has to be something once living, such as charcoal, shell, or bone. I am not sure why she thought that the rocks would have been so old. Perhaps there was no charcoal in the site; that sometimes happens with older sites.
Anyway, if you can find the original report that should answer the questions.
If you have a library near, there is also a several-page obit in American Antiquity, Vol. 59(4). I'll try to remember to check that issue at the office and see if there are any more details for you.
More good info. Thanks.
I understand that, I need to go back (on my own time, not works) and see what she was called to date. For some reason I was under the impression that she was asked to date remains, but then the reference to the uranium dating, which is non-organic (?) testing, confuses me. I'll look more later.
I say someone is trying to get some press by attacking Ann Coulter. Way too late for that; she's been in the crosshairs ever since loser liberals have noticed her. One even tried to copycat her in an effort to sell some books.
Ann's writing is pretty good, and from what I understand her "outdated arguments" are not that outdated, since millions still apparently believe the moth stories, etc.
But only the last 150 trying to prove macro-evolution.
Spam is unsolicited advertizing. Ichneumon posted relevant facts and points to this discussion. Yes, it was lengthy. The stuff that gets posted by creationists and their ilk are small, sound-bite like points. But the lack of correct information coupled with the mind bogglingly misinformation implied by such short creationist snippets can only be refuted with what appear to be long winded explanations.
Moreover, Ichneumon takes the time to compose his own material with his own background reviews. He gives credit where credit is due and does not copy and paste. You are getting information from someone who is extremely knowledgeable in the field and, since you are a college student, you should suspend your personal animosity and pay attention to him. You might actually learn something.
heh, from now on whenever I read one of your posts aamm, I'll picture you in this little number.
Oh, how funny....you certainly have a fine sense of humor...thanks for that...
You're very welcome
I checked the obit and it has nothing specific on the old Mexican site, but does have a complete bibliography. Are you interested in the references to that site? If so, could get them for you tomorrow. You might be able to dig them out of a major library if you have one nearby. I doubt that you'll find them on-line.
Thanks, as usual.
Thanks for the info. It should be good reading. I knew that there was a plus or minus factor involved.
No, it is not the same thing. You inhibit yourself from copying other people's work rather than writing your own. I hope you maintain that standard in school. I've seen too many students pass cut and paste off as their own essays. It would be another thing all together if you were an actual contributor, or on par with those contributors, to those sites and you could compose your own material.
But I practice what I preach; I’m not going to use up a bunch of space on a forum to copy and paste what can be covered with a link.
Ichy posted relevant citations for Coulter's book, no the entire book. Moreover, links are not permanent and some of them have volumes of data. Ichy just extracted the relevant passage and gave proper citation to the source. It's a standard academic practice when writing anything of substance. The main difference is that he does not copy and paste others works and passes them along as an entire posts. The response he gave, albeit lengthy, is the only effective way to counter the creationists disinformation presented on these threads. Moreover, Ichy is on par with cutting edge scientists in the field. Judging by the responses to his post, it seems most creationists chose willful ignorance over enlightening themselves. A lot of people chose not to read it because it was long. What a whimpy, cowardly way to respond to someone who did a lot of work to produce a solid, technical post. To me, the choice to not read the post, and to brag about it, speaks volumes of the character of the objecting creationists.
Yes, Ichneumon also writes his own stuff. Yes, he usually cites it. But let’s not kid ourselves; he copies and pastes all the time.
Your problem is that you can't handle someone that is actually a real sceintists who does this sort of thing for a living. It borders on libel when you accuse him of cutting and pasting when all he is doing is expertly refuting the sound bite posts you and other creationists spout. You, and your ilk, post far more than Ichy does. The only difference is that you make many small posts that are superficial at best. It takes effort to tread through these threads to get to something that actually has substance, like what Ichy posts. And based strictly on the postings themselves, it is clear that Ichy is very knowledgeable and you are not.
Personally, I see you more upset with the solid broadside of detailed information Ichy posted than anyting else. Sure his posts are a long read, but you will get a lot more out of them than the creationist 'Godidit' or 'evilutionists are gay commies' nonsense that the immature post here.
Knock it off with this “you might actually learn something” garbage, by the way. It’s really getting old.
It really is your loss, not mine. You want to be the spokesman for creationists here. You maintian the creationists ping list. You appear to want a leadship role in advancing creationism agains the evils of evolution. If that is true, the least you can do is pull your head out of the sand and learn what your opponents known and to understand what they understand. I'm not telling you to agree with it, but if you can't understand the other side of an issue, you cannot effectively campaign against it. You will, instead, pass off your own preconceptions rather than engage in a fact for fact, issue driven discussion. By chosing NOT to read Ichy's post, you are chosing ignorance and are of no use to your own cause. Unless, of course, you are more interested in the praises of other creationists and jsut want to throw out sound bite points without any foundation. In that case, you can never be a leader against evolution, but only a propagandist, and a weak one at that, for creationism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.