Have you noted the similarity between the Denial of Creationism and the Denial of Holocaust?
All "science" based:
From URL: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=310&mpp=15&p=2
01-12-2008Member Rating: 9.2
You are exactly correct in your post. (I love the amount of detail you put into your posts!)
As an archaeologist who does a lot of radiocarbon dating, I have studied the literature extensively to figure out all of the things I need to do to make my dates as accurate as possible (and I have both written a monograph on the subject and delivered a number of papers at professional meetings).
Creationists are just the opposite; they want the method to be incorrect, so they misrepresent what the laboratories or the archaeologists or other -ologists do. They misrepresent the facts as often as possible to raise doubts in their readers' minds, all in support of their religious beliefs.
Here's another fraud on their part that I documented and blogged elsewhere:
Claim:=====================I have documented several more of these common creationist "errors," which are repeated so often, are so easily checked, and are so seldom corrected when it is discovered that they are nonsense, that they certainly amount to frauds.
Coal from Russia from the â€œPennsylvanian,â€ supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source
False information due to sloppy research.
This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)
The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weilandâ€™s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).
The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia â€” 1680 Â± 170. A.D. 270What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41Â° 25â€² N Lat, 74Â° 40â€² E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads â€œCharcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loamâ€¦â€
But the term â€œcoalâ€ in place of â€œcharcoalâ€ was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Hamâ€™s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find â€œPennsylvanianâ€ in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.
This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.
Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323.
These creationist analyses are supposed to document the erroneous nature of radiocarbon dating. What they do instead is show that creation "science" is an oxymoron.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to: Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 6:28 PM RAZD has responde
The one above is one of the typical errors of Creationists and on which the Evolutionism bases his fortunes today. Creationist scientists doesn't exist no more as the Roman Empire wiped them away from the scientific establishment of the planet. The Jesuit gnosticism project called science consists in to create a series of "special effects" who could be reproduced in any social, cultural and ideological context in order to impress the spectator about the presumed "inconsistency" of Creationism. From here it is born the scientific assioma of "repetibility" which is not an objective assumption but in itself a religious occult declaration. The science is religion as opposes to the single instant of God's creation substituting it with infinite moments of man's creation. This anti-godly monster grew up in a net of monstruous bureucratic complexity where the Truth, as It couldn't be destroyed, is hidden in a jungle of datas, interpretations, and epistemologic perspectives. A jungle inhabited by predators such as the "scientists", a term today automatically considered synonimous of "Evolutionist" and therefore synonymous of "Implacable Enemy of Creationism/God".
Evolutionism therefore lives on the errors of the Creationism, or, in other world, is a scientific method to build theories (starting from from Creationism's errors) aimed to confirm a without-God universe - from the above excerpt:
".....I have documented several more of these common creationist "errors," which are repeated so often, are so easily checked, and are so seldom corrected when it is discovered that they are nonsense, that they certainly amount to frauds.
These creationist analyses are supposed to document the erroneous nature of radiocarbon dating. What they do instead is show that creation "science" is an oxymoron.........".
The ideological core of such 'critic' is the same of the critics on Larry Silverstein's admission for having ordered the blowing of WTC7, where Larry "radiocarbon 14" Silverstein is 'dating' the order of demolition well back before the 'flood' of the 9-11 attack and therefore is considered the "smoking gun" in order to frame the "Noah" 's descendants (insistently indicated in the CIA/Mossad cabal) who religiously are claiming that no order of demolition existed before..... It remains only to mind if Larry "Radiocarbon" has been purposely injected in the context of the 9-11 attack by an invisible hand in order to blame America & Jews and to praise Islam (the strategic religious partner of Roman Catholicism today), but this is promptly denied by the mainstream leaders of the "9-11 Truth movement", no more or less the mainstream science today is denying any hidden procedural hand injecting Carbon 14 in the scientific analysis today.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
NASA hiding the DEFINITIVE proof of intelligent life on Mars!!!