Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank
PDF file.
Well, in this case the authors of the PDF are describing what other researchers did in the face of anomalous results. It is not the current authors that have ruled out mundane explanations. It is the primary researchers that have no explanation. The problem is extremely evident by what the original researchers did to rid themselves of this strange result. They could neither get rid of the anomaly nor could they explain it.
The position the authors take in the face of these conflicts is that this 14C, which should not be present according to their framework, represents ‘contamination’ for which they currently have no explanation.
No, the Earth was realized to be immensely old based on many independent lines of evidence, *before* Darwin came up with his new idea. Quick overview.
No, that's the current authors' oversimplified characterization of the work of the primary researchers. Plus, they then go on to admit that primary researchers *do* have a "mundane explanation", and that explanation is contamination. The current authors discount that explanation, but that doesn't magically make it true that the "primary researches have no explanation". So contrary to your assertions, the primary researchers *do* have an explanation, and it *is* the current authors who have chosen to rule it out.
Furthermore, I'm not sure they've even read the work of the primary researchers, since all their data and cites from those works appear to be cribbed directly from Giem's earlier compilation of results.
Additionally, they give a misleading description of Giem's examination of the in situ generation issue. They write, "He [Giem] shows contamination of the C-bearing fossil material in situ is unlikely..." The problem is that Giem *only* examined whether C14 could be generated in situ by N14 to C14 conversion, and (rightly, I believe) decided it wasn't likely to produce enough C14 to account for the amounts found. *However*, he did *not* examine other processes which could generate new C14 in place, including the crucial U/Th decay which is known to produce C14. The authors either didn't notice that Giem did not cover this alternative source, or chose not to disclose it.
"The position the authors take in the face of these conflicts is that this 14C, which should not be present according to their framework, represents ‘contamination’ for which they currently have no explanation."
That refers *only* to citation #30, and describes their inability to explain why C14 levels would be correlated with species. It's not a summation of all the "primary researchers".
Sounds suspiciously like the behavior that they hated from medved when he'd post his creation science website links on each crevo thread. Isn't that odd?
It would be if ALS's description were accurate, but it's not. The original proposal was here. Nothing there about sending "all newbies" to a "pro-evo" archive "once they entered a thread" -- it was specifically about a having a FAQ that people could be directed to only if they hit on a frequent topic which had been discussed to death before.
The "pro-evo website" came up in post #511, since it already had comprehensive and fair-minded FAQs for many of the usual topics plus links to relevant counterpoint pages on anti-evo sites, and it was suggested that reinventing the wheel might be a waste of time for items already covered there. The two main replies (by evos, note) said that it still would probably be a better idea to develop FR's own in-house "crevo FAQ".
And when ALS went aghast at the idea of actually directing anyone to a putatively "pro-evo" site, I pointed out the obvious: "Sure -- if they're going to participate in crevo discussions, they should read and understand the scientific side of the debate. You want to hide it from them?"
So when ALS now breathlessly reports a nefarious plot to "formulate a plan to send all newbies to a pro-evo website once they entered a thread", note what a misleading summary it was, and keep that in mind the next time(s) ALS makes accusatory claims.
But then, I shouldn't question them. they're so much smarter than little old me.
We're certainly less snidely sarcastic, anyway.
Bah, posting at 4am doesn't make for clear writing. Allow me to edit myself here: What I mean is that I'm not sure they've even read the work of the many primary researchers which were summarized by Giem, which is most of their datapoints in the table of "prior findings". I don't doubt that they did read the few additional more recent papers which they incorporated along with the data in Giem's table.
"I don't know" is not an explanation. It doesn't work on tests, and it doesn't work in science. The primary researcher's tried and tried to eliminate the anomalous result. They failed. The result was. "I don't know".
Any of your hypothetical explanations fails to account for the tests used by the primary researchers and described by the "non-reading" current authors. Now you might note that Giem is cited from [18] Giem, P., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins, 51(2001) pp.6-30. and these are the primary researchers on the case I mentioned [30] Nadeau, M.-J., Grootes, P.M., Voelker, A., Bruhn, F., Duhr, A., and Oriwall, A., Carbonate 14C Background: Does It Have Multiple Personalities?, Radiocarbon, 43:2A(2001), pp. 169-176.. Giem does not cite them.
Finally, despite your aspersions, Uranium is not as ubiquitous as Nitrogen.
|
...that does not rule an abiogenetic origin of single celled organisms over a long time and very different conditions from the earth we live in today.
"In other words.. POOF!!! it's a MIRACLE!!!"
|
Psst... The ABOVE is an example of showing your sources......
[The above is a different color than the rest......]
nothing follows
I think he very WELL defined the 'E' position...
..had something to do with terrorists, IIRC)
I don't know about 'Christ's ambassadors', but PRO-evos are notorious for mangled and misleading PILTDOWN MAN, as you know as well.
Ya just, don't, get it: do you?
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.