Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
In the summer of 2006, I heard that a new book called Godless presented an insightful and devastating criticism of the theory of evolution. Although I learned that its author, Ann Coulter, is not a scientist but a lawyer turned author and TV pundit, she nevertheless appeared to be an intelligent and well-educated person, so I started reading. At first I was puzzled. There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies. But it wasn't until Coulter dusted off the old Piltdown man story that I suddenly realized: it was a hoax! And it was brilliant...
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
It’s not 43, it’s 42. And the question is “what do you get when you multiply six by nine?” That is the answer to everything.
No... You set yourself up as the fool. You needed no help from me.
I've linked to them here:
Finally. An explanation.
That ‘s a very accurate list of links countering Ichy’s points. I’m bookmarking it for future reference. Thanks!
Just trying to do my part. Because I care!
LibertarianSchmoe, like doc30, I also appreciate that list of links regarding any and all posts that actually did address the points that Ichy made...when will I have the time to read all of them?
These are the references I think pertinent from the bibliography of Cynthia Irwin-Williams [American Antiquity, Vol. 59(4)]:
1967 Comments on Allegations by J.L. Lorenzo Concerning Archaeological Research at Valsequillo, Puebla. Misc. Publications No. 1, Paleoindian Institute, Eastern New Mexico, Portales.
1967 Associations of Early Man with Horse, Camel, and Mastodon at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo (Puebla, Mexico). In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, ed. by P.S. Martin and H.E. Wright, Jr. Proceedings of the VII Congress of the International Association of Quaternary Research. Yale Univ. Press.
1969 Comments on the Associations of Archaeological Materials and Extinct Fauna in the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 34:82-93.
1969 Artefactos humanos encontrados en asociacion con los restos de une fauna extinta pleistocenica, en las region de Valsequillo, Pueblo, Mexico. In Proceedings of the First Congress on Early Man in Latin America, Universidad de Antofagasta, Chile.
1969 Dilemma Posed by Uranium-Series Dates on Archaeologically Significant Bones from Valsequillos, Puebla, Mexico. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:237-244.
1978 Summary of Archaeological Evidence from the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico. In Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, ed. by D.L. Browman. Mouton, The Hague.
Hope this helps. You need to check a major library. But, when doing serious research, that's always the way you have to go.
also, I worked up a bunch of questions as I was reading last night and I'll try to get those to see what you think, know or can recommend.
Too long, you think? Maybe someone should complain to management. I believe that's the proper way to handle Too Much Information.
;?)
But what if I'm thinking that it's a differential space-time gradient that created an appearance of such for you?
Topological 2D Riemann-Cartan-Weyl gravity :-)
In that case you need to see a shrink and or get off the drugs you are taking.
You did not get his point I see.
With regards to C14 dating. I liked the 50’s A-bomb testing avenue and know that it would increase the available neutrons which in turn increases C14 concentrations. I’m still digging on that subject. Thanks for pointing it out.
Here is where I am also going. What effect, and how would C14 dating be adjusted for sealed underground water reservoirs seepage? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the sealed water chamber would be free of C14 because it has been shielded from cosmic radiation. If it were to leech out at, some point, it would upset C14 ratio’s?
This is a new avenue of thought for me, but there are/were a lot of underground water that move and seep due to tectonic movement throughout the ages?
As usual, you are the field expert and I’d love to hear your thoughts.
K4
Check this out.
A sealed water source would receive no C14 from the atmosphere, and the existing levels would eventually drop below the detectable level. (However, tiny amounts of C14 can be created by radioactivity in rocks, which is why coal, dinosaur bones, and other ancient materials often produce measurable amounts of C14.) This could result in dates on that water being too old.
You can get the same problem with water exposed to limestone. It absorbs carbon with no appreciable C14 content, hence dating too old. Freshwater shellfish who live in such water also date too old. These problems have been studied. These effects generally result in dates a few hundred to, perhaps in extreme cases, a thousand or more years too old.
The solution is to know what you are dating and to date multiple materials and compare the dates one against another. My last major excavation produced 31 radiocarbon dates.
A better example is deep water in oceans. Through the upwelling effect, deep water with lower amounts of C14 can enter the food chain and be absorbed by shellfish and sea mammals, as well as the humans who consume those items as food. When these materials, or the humans, are subsequently dated, the dates can be too old.
There are two ways to correct for this. First, for humans, establish the C13/C12 and N15/N14 ratios (these are stable isotopes). This can let you estimate the percent of marine organisms in the diet and hence the amount of carbon from upwelling.
For shellfish and sea mammals you assume 100% marine carbon, and apply a reservoir correction. There have been a lot of studies comparing charcoal and shellfish, for example, as well as dates done on shellfish collected at known dates prior to the atomic bomb tests. These have led to a correction factor applied to dates on marine shell. (See Marine Reservoir Correction Database.) In our area the average correction is on the order of 650 years.
The test of these corrections is how closely marine shell and charcoal date when two samples from the exact same provenience are dated (for example a trash or fire pit). All of the paired samples I have had dated have been statistically the same, showing the calibration is accurate.
Hope this helps.
It's possible we have "a failure to communicate."
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.