The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 120,000 year old ice found to harbor life. Simply amazing! (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Smile

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
GlenD
View Profile
Inner circle
LosAngeles, Ca
1298 Posts

Profile of GlenD
You forgot "oy vey" there John. LOL

GlenD
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin

"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!)
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-06 11:17, gaddy wrote:
riiight.... It's a big conspiracy to get beople to think that little bugs live in ice! Haha! The checks will be rolling in when we pull THIS one off!

It's not a "conspiracy", it's business as usual. Politics has gotten too involved in science, and science has gone from a search for knowledge to a search for money. You tell the people with the money what they want to hear, so they'll give you another grant. If a study is unpopular, the results are screwed to avoid public disapproval.

Example: A Harvard study showed that in nearly every case "diversity" in communities made citizens less likely to participate in community events, trust their neighbors, trust their local leaders, attend public functions, etc. In short, it weakened the communities as a whole and caused a lot of distrust. Harvard sat on the study results for 8 months before they released it. "Why?" you ask. There was a major debate over immigration reform at the time, and one of the key points for looser border control is "encouraging diversity". Harvard knew that the study was pertinent to the issue, but sat on the study to further an agenda - that's not science, it's politics.

Also, take some time to look into the dating methods used these days, every last one of them is either baseless, faulty, or uses a form of circular reasoning. It's also amazing to find that when different dating methods are used on the same item - they often produce different dates.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2008-06-06 16:43, Dustin Baker wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-06-06 11:17, gaddy wrote:
riiight.... It's a big conspiracy to get beople to think that little bugs live in ice! Haha! The checks will be rolling in when we pull THIS one off!


It's not a "conspiracy", it's business as usual. Politics has gotten too involved in science, and science has gone from a search for knowledge to a search for money. You tell the people with the money what they want to hear, so they'll give you another grant. If a study is unpopular, the results are scewed to avoid public disapproval.

Example: A Harvard study showed that in nearly every case "diversity" in communities made citizens less likely to participate in community events, trust their neighbors, trust their local leaders, attend public functions, etc. In short, it weakened the communities as a whole and caused a lot of distrust. Harvard sat on the study results for 8months before they released it. "Why?" you ask. There was a major debate over immigration reform at the time, and one of the key points for looser border control is "encouraging diversity". Harvard knew that the study was pertinent to the issue, but sat on the study to further an agenda - that's not science, it's politics.

Also, take some time to look into the dating methods used these days, every last one of them is either baseless, faulty, or uses a form of circular reasoning. It's also amazing to find that when different dating methods are used on the same item - they often produce different dates.


If the study you refer to is Robert Putnam's 2007 research, I can't find anything to support your claims. So far as I can tell, he took his time publishing (8 months is very little time in academic publishing, by the way) to recheck his data and analysis because the results were counter-intuitive.

Do you have any reliable source for your claim that "Harvard" suppressed the result for political reasons?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Magnus,

"Harvard" is often used as shorthand for "liberal pinko commies" here in America.

FYI,
Gaddy
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-06 17:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
If the study you refer to is Robert Putnam's 2007 research, I can't find anything to support your claims. So far as I can tell, he took his time publishing (8 months is very little time in academic publishing, by the way) to recheck his data and analysis because the results were counter-intuitive.

Do you have any reliable source for your claim that "Harvard" suppressed the result for political reasons?

John


It does refer to Putnum's research. Here's a quote from The Financial Times, which is where I got my "delayed for political reasons" point.

Quote:
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that.

Putnum flat out admitted that he delayed the publishing for political reasons - I've seen nothing about re-checking his data to make sure it's accurate.

P.S. The findings aren't "counter intuitive" in the least. Any sociologist who read as far as "in-groups" and "out-groups" in his first year could tell you that.

Here's the link to the story if anyone cares to read it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-......_check=1


gaddy,
You know me better than that. I resent the implication that I would sleight "Liberal Pinko Commies" by referring to them simply as "Harvard". I've addressed the "Liberal Pinko Commies" by name on this forum many times and will continue to to so in the future. After all, it's only polite.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Thanks for the link. Sadly, I am not registered, so all I get are two sentences, neither of which quote Putnam.

Here is the abstract from the article he eventually published:
Quote:
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.

Quote:
Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

My original observation about him rechecking his findings came from the Boston Globe online.

boston.com


John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 02:05, Dustin Baker wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-06-06 17:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
If the study you refer to is Robert Putnam's 2007 research, I can't find anything to support your claims. So far as I can tell, he took his time publishing (8 months is very little time in academic publishing, by the way) to recheck his data and analysis because the results were counter-intuitive.

Do you have any reliable source for your claim that "Harvard" suppressed the result for political reasons?

John

It does refer to Putnum's research. Here's a quote from The Financial Times, which is where I got my "delayed for political reasons" point.

Quote:
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

Putnum flat out admitted that he delayed the publishing for political reasons - I've seen nothing about re-checking his data to make sure it's accurate.

P.S. The findings aren't "counter intuitive" in the least. Any sociologist who read as far as "in-groups" and "out-groups" in his first year could tell you that.

Here's the link to the story if anyone cares to read it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-......_check=1


gaddy,
You know me better than that. I resent the implication that I would sleight "Liberal Pinko Commies" by referring to them simply as "Harvard". I've addressed the "Liberal Pinko Commies" by name on this forum many times and will continue to to so in the future. After all, it's only polite.

I know that Dustin, but if you're willing to say that "Science IS (also known as equals in mathspeak) political" and GlenD is willing to say "science IS corrupt" then I figure I'm allowed at least one grand sweeping generalization as well. Smile


On a more serious note, to equivocate the social sciences with a "hard science" like chemistry or physics (or even a "softer" hard science like archeo-biology) is a very unfair comparison.
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
Actually, equivocation is exactly what is called for.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Wow and I thought this would be a "feel good thread" LOL.

Gaddy, keep this thread in mind the next time I am called contentious LOL.

Ok forget age guys, how about the amazing conditions in which it was found?

Why center on what we disagree with instead of what we can agree on?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 11:05, gaddy wrote:
On a more serious note, to equivocate the social sciences with a "hard science" like chemistry or physics (or even a "softer" hard science like archeo-biology) is a very unfair comparison.

The "hard sciences" aren't as 'hard' as people like to think.
Chemistry is one of the purer ones - since it's pretty freakin' hard to cheat or taint results without them being noticed. Add vinegar to baking soda, and you get a lot of bubbling every time.

Physics is another story. Most of the "Physics" field is theoretical, largely because there is no known way to test the theories. Even "Gravity" is still a theory - there's just enough anomolies to stop it from making "law" status.

Archeology use to be pretty legit - you know, back in the day when dates where decided by historical documentation and "period earmarks" rather than wild guesses and flimsy chemical dating.

Here's an interesting link. They talk about the limitations of Radiocarbon Dating and why it isn't as accurate as "scientists" would have you believe.
http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
NJJ
View Profile
Inner circle
6439 Posts

Profile of NJJ
I think dustin is right - if you want the HARD facts, keep away from these so called so called 'scientists' with the big grant cheques and get the REAL deal on science from such unbiased, objective organisations as Central Highlands Christian Publications.
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 18:59, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote:
I think dustin is right - if you want the HARD facts, keep away from these so called so called 'scientists' with the big grant cheques and get the REAL deal on science from such unbiased, objective organisations as Central Highlands Christian Publications.


Humorous as Nick's point is, the same factors are mentioned on many other sites.
Here are several:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/cours......ing.html
http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm

The scientific community doesn't deny that Radiocarbon dating is limited in scope and aging capability - they just ignore that fact when they want to date something beyond the given limits. That doesn't sound like "science" to me.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Dustin are you trying to be deceitful? Or did you simply not read the links you provided?

The links in the second post do not support the nonsense in the original post at all.

Where do any of the second batch of links support your claim that "
The scientific community doesn't deny that Radiocarbon dating is limited in scope and aging capability - they just ignore that fact when they want to date something beyond the given limits" ?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Heh! -Danny, you are so right. Everyone has their buttons...


Quote:
On 2008-06-07 12:30, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow and I thought this would be a "feel good thread" LOL.

Gaddy, keep this thread in mind the next time I am called contentious LOL.

Ok forget age guys, how about the amazing conditions in which it was found?

Why center on what we disagree with instead of what we can agree on?
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 21:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Dustin are you trying to be deceitful? Or did you simply not read the links you provided?

The links in the second post do not support the nonsense in the original post at all.

Where do any of the second batch of links support your claim that "
The scientific community doesn't deny that Radiocarbon dating is limited in scope and aging capability - they just ignore that fact when they want to date something beyond the given limits" ?

John


You should have followed more closely John.
These links point out that radiocarbon dating is limited to a 50,000year marker (60according to wikipedia); and yet scientists often claim that items are far older (120,000 yrs for example) while utilizing the same method. It's a bit like rolling a 6 sided die and claiming to have rolled a 14.

Nicholas asserted that since the first link was to a Christian supported site, that it wasn't accurate (bias at minimum). I posted these links as a response to that assertion - which would have been obvious if you where paying attention.

Since you apparently didn't bother to read the links before you accused me of lying, I shall quote each for you.

Link #1
Paragraph 1
Quote:
Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates."

Link #2
Point 3, Heading: The Limitations of Carbon 14 Dating
Quote:
Third, because the decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. It is not very accurate for fairly recent deposits. In recent deposits so little decay has occurred that the error factor (the standard deviation) may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample.

Link #3
Heading: The C14 Method
Excerpt from Paragraph 3
Quote:
At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating).

Link #4
Heading: Response
Paragraph 1
Quote:
Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

Link #5
Paragraph 1
Quote:
Radiocarbon (14C) dating [1,2] is widely used to determine the ages of samples that are less than approximately 50,000 years old.

You proposed your thesis in true "modern scientific" fashion John. You posted:
Quote:
Dustin are you trying to be deceitful? Or did you simply not read the links you provided?
The links in the second post do not support the nonsense in the original post at all.

Without actually reading the linked info before deciding that it didn't apply.

Now John, I must ask - "Are you trying to be decietful? Or did you simply not read the links I provided?"
Or (more likely) are you just miffed because you got burned on the Putnam study?
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
This is comedy. The first link tries to show how radiocarbon dating is consistent with the Biblical account of Noah's flood. None of the others do that.

The claim in the first article is that scientists misuse radiocarbon dating by extending outside the valid range of the technique. You use the other articles which go into detail of how scientists use radiocarbon dating within that range to support the first article. Huh?

Find me one recent example of a scientist using C14 dating to make claims outside the "safe limits" of the Wikipedia article.

John

And I certainly wasn't "burned" on the Putnam article. You still have not show how anyone "suppressed" the findings for any amount of time. Your claim that Harvard University did anything about the matter still remains without any evidence. LOL
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
NJJ
View Profile
Inner circle
6439 Posts

Profile of NJJ
Thanks for the extra links Dustin!

I perform a high school show called Bad Science designed to encourage critical thinking. It's not a randi lovin' skeptic show but I always encourage to consider the source of information, the motives of it's creators and to consider multiple sources.

For example, I would dismiss any article on radiocarbon dating written and promoted by religious organisation. The danger of being subjected to pure propaganda from people who don't know a thing about the subject is just too high.
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 22:11, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
This is comedy. The first link tries to show how radiocarbon dating is consistent with the Biblical account of Noah's flood. None of the others do that.



What's your point?
The third link has a wierd background color - none of the other links have that background color. . . LIES LIES AND SLANDER!

As Nicholas said before, the first link was created by a religious group - and hence lacked credibility in his view. The fact that carbon dating is limited to a 50,000yr limit (the entire point I was making) is consistent through all 5 links.

John, at this point I can only conclude that you are purposely trying to avoid understanding the point.

Quote:
The claim in the first article is that scientists misuse radiocarbon dating by extending outside the valid range of the technique.



Which they do, which is my point.


Quote:
You use the other articles which go into detail of how scientists use radiocarbon dating within that range to support the first article. Huh?



I'm not "supporting the first article", or any of the others. Nick didn't like the fact that the first one was linked to a religious group - I offered him 5 religion free alternatives that all express the same point (the 50,000yr limit).

And when did I say anything about "additional" claims made in the articles John? You're grabbing at straws here, and making up straws to grab at for that matter. The only aspect of the article I referred to was the use of radiocarbon dating to date items with an age exceeding 50,000yrs (radiocarbon's acknowledged limit). The point in referencing this particular article was to point out the figure "50,000 yrs".

I hate to tell you this, but everyone EXCEPT YOU understood that.

I'm using all five articles to support my original point, which unlike yours has remained the same throughout this discussion. I will restate it (yet again) since you seem to have missed it the first several times.

This is my point:
Scientists use radiocarbon dating to date fossils and other archeological items. Often, they give the items dates that are massively outside the range of radiocarbon dating's capabilities.

That's it there John ^ Right there ^ You saw it this time right?


Quote:
Find me one recent example of a scientist using C14 dating to make claims outside the "safe limits" of the Wikipedia article.



Interesting how you specifically chose the Wikipedia article. Was it because it gave an extra 10,000 years of leeway? Or was it because it was the only link you bothered to read?

Either way - Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten claimed to have found a 30million year old half-human skull in Switzerland. When another scientist grew suspicious of his claims and rechecked the skull, it turned out to be less than 10,000 yrs old (it was actually found in France incidently). Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten has fraudulently carbon dated dozens of skulls throughout his career - for which he was forced to retire.
By the way, the skulls wheren't rechecked because of the obviously false 50million year claim - they where rechecked because he claimed to make the "find of the century" on a bi-annual basis. Jealousy of his fame, not scientific integrity, was the motivation.

For the mathematically challenged: 50,000,000 is 1,000 times longer than the generally accepted radiocarbon dating limit.


Quote:
And I certainly wasn't "burned" on the Putnam article. You still have not show how anyone "suppressed" the findings for any amount of time. Your claim that Harvard University did anything about the matter still remains without any evidence.



I beg to differ John, I provided you with an article where Putnam admitted openly to surpressing the study for political reasons. I beleive your response was, 'I'm not a member of that site, I can't read it.' (as though it isn't available elsewhere).

In fairness, Harvard as an institution did not 'directly' surpress the study.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 23:47, Dustin Baker wrote:

Quote:
And I certainly wasn't "burned" on the Putnam article. You still have not show how anyone "suppressed" the findings for any amount of time. Your claim that Harvard University did anything about the matter still remains without any evidence.


I beg to differ John, I provided you with an article where Putnam admitted openly to surpressing the study for political reasons. I beleive your response was, 'I'm not a member of that site, I can't read it.' (as though it isn't available elsewhere).

Dustin, I DID read the article, and Putnam did NOT admit openly to suppressing anything for "political reasons". You are really reading way too much into what he said.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » 120,000 year old ice found to harbor life. Simply amazing! (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.37 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL