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
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 22:27, Nicholas J. Johnson wrote:
Thanks for the extra links Dustin!

You're welcome
Quote:
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.

Is that what that is? I've seen it on your site, but never realized that it was a critical thinking show (I figured it was a "mad science" kind of show).

I used a similar idea when the local community college asked me to do a show for their graduation party. Half the faculty loved it, half of them hated it, but all the students seemed to enjoy it.
Quote:
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.

True, but let's flip that around > I would be suspicious of any claims made by a scientist who's paycheck relies on him making a "big find". Just because he may know what he's talking about, doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
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:

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.

Yes he claimed that a 50 million-year-old "half-ape" called Adapis had been found in Switzerland.

But to be clear, so far as I can tell he never claimed to have carbon dated it as such.

Yes, he did incorrectly or fraudulently carbon date some skulls and he was off by some 10s of thousands of years there.

But that is because he misused the technique and / or lied, not because carbon dating did not work.

I found this next bit on an IMDB message board (for the movie 'Expelled' as it happens). Rather than clean it up and correct it for political correctness and mispellings etc., I will just copy it below. I think he makes several good points.

---

This sort of thing happens all the time.

How many instruments are there that can give false readings under certain circumstances?

Electronic distance measuring devices
Compasses
GPS
Computers & Software
Fuel tank gauges
Scales
Thermometers
Barometers

Pretty well everything that requires calibration and/or methods to prevent the wrong answers.

And yet, the creos trust all of them, but not radiometric dating. They ignore the fact that the circumstances that can generate wrong results are known and methods are taken to prevent them occurring.

Funniest story I've ever heard, and showing how poor the creationists knowledge is, is the story of some creationists who sent some fossilised iguanadon bones to be C14 tested as a blind test of a C14 lab. Silly dopes didn't realise that C14 cannot be used to date things that old.

What's really funny, is that these creationists have never stopped to consider where the "bad results" that are shown in creationist propaganda come from. Most of the time they have taken just the outliers from scientific literature or, in this case, essentially quote mined some research. Their claim that dating results are bad debunks their alternative claim that scientists hide the bad results.
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
[quote]On 2008-06-07 23:47, Dustin Baker wrote:


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


You still have provided ZERO instances of this.

Quote:


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?


Are you really claiming this? Fossils contain NO organic matter. NOBODY uses C14 to date fossils.

Again you make loud claims, but provide no evidence. Please find one case of peer-reviewed science that either

a) uses C14 to date fossils, or
b) goes outside the valid range of C14 dating.

I'll give you one possible debating point. Some claim that there are techniques that extend C14 dating to closer to 100,000 years. I am not competent to judge the relative merits of these techniques.

Dustin, please provide evidence. You seem to have a reason to believe that scientists are abusing their own methods. All I ask is that you provide evidence of peer-reviewed science that does this.

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
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 23:54, balducci wrote:
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.

Really?

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”.

Let's break this down balducci.



Quote:
This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration.

Putnam expressed later in the article that he is a devout believer in unity through diversity (which his study proved false). I find it interesting that, while a debate on Illegal Immigration was raging in congress, Mr. Putnam felt no need to send his research to the congress or the President to help them make a more informed decision. The reason is expressed in the first sentence of the quote. It was a "contentious finding" - aka, it's not "Politically Correct".

Quote:
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. . .

First, Putnam states plainly that he "delayed the publishing of his research". He then claimed that he was trying to come up with a way to "compensate for the negative effects of diversity" before he released it. Interesting. Especially since Putnam didn't release any solutions or proposals along with the study - which means that that isn't why he delayed the release.

He claimed that it could be "irresponsible" to publish the study without coming up with a solution first. If that's the case, why did he publish it at all? He still doesn't have a solution. Secondly, he was far more likely to find a solution if he had more help - which releasing the study could give him. Once again, that reason is a lie. Third, in what way is identifying an existing problem "irresponsible"? If Putnam had released the study while the immigration debate was at its worst, it would have polarized the public against illegal immigration (which according to the study is bad) - that's what he means by "irresponsible".

Now, let's review:
1: The immigration debate was at its climax when Putnam decided to withhold his research results from the public.
2: Putnam was/is an outspoken advocate for a loose immigration policy because of the diversity it brings.
3: Putnam's study proved his position to be DEAD wrong.
4: The results of Putnam's study where politically incorrect.
5: Putnam claimed to be looking for a solution before he released the study - a solution he's never presented - though he did release the study after the immigration debate cooled down a bit.
6: Putnam called releasing the study "irresponsible", because it would have ended the debate once and for all.


I suppose you're right balducci - he didn't admit to delaying the study for political reasons.
He admitted to delaying the study, gave unintelligible reasons for doing so, and told everyone to ignore the study - because he still thinks diversity is important (despite his study that proved that it was massively destructive).
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Tell the truth, Dustin. Have you read Putnam's article?

It was published in Scandinavian Political Studies, Volume 30 Issue 2 Pages 137-174, June 2007.

When you've read it, let us know about what he actually says in the article.

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
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Duncan, since you now agree with me that Professor Putnam did not admit to delaying publication for political reasons, perhaps you'll rejoin us in the 'price of gas' thread? Smile
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.
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
[quote]On 2008-06-08 00:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On 2008-06-07 23:47, Dustin Baker wrote:


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


You still have provided ZERO instances of this.

Quote:


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?


Are you really claiming this? Fossils contain NO organic matter. NOBODY uses C14 to date fossils.

I'm sorry John, replace the word "fossils" with "bones". Feel better?
It's my fault really. I made the mistake of assuming that, after several posts of you blabbering nonsense and trying to make-up new subjects, I could get a reprieve for a single word error. Let's not forget that I said, "...fossils and other archeological items." by the way.

I've provided you with everything you've asked for John (several times). You keep changing the subject, posting a new challenge, or trying to make-up new issues. Frankly, the fact that you're stooping to such a sad level ("fossil" vs "bones") is rather pathetic.

You seem to fancy yourself to be a scientific mind; and, like most of our era, you ignore anything that doesn't support your view, you change your argument whenever you're proven wrong, you call "do-over" or "that doesn't count" whenever your challenges are met, and you spew pseudo-scientific dribble in an attempt to sound intelligent - praying that it will intimidate people enought to keep them from questioning you.

Frankly John, I get enough of such discussion from talking to the average teenager; and frankly, I expect better from a "grown-up" like yourself.

Well, I've already met every challenge you've asked of me; so I see no point in participating in your "do-over".

Enjoy folks.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Dustin Baker
View Profile
Inner circle
California
1006 Posts

Profile of Dustin Baker
Quote:
On 2008-06-08 00:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Tell the truth, Dustin. Have you read Putnam's article?

It was published in Scandinavian Political Studies, Volume 30 Issue 2 Pages 137-174, June 2007.

When you've read it, let us know about what he actually says in the article.

John


Yet another subject I said nothing about John. Thank you for proving my point further.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2008-06-04 16:10, spatlind wrote:
Ok Danny, couldn't help myself Smile It is beyond my imagination to understand how a living organism can survive so long. I doubt there is much even of the physical world that survives to this day as it was 120,000 years ago. Phenomenal.


Wonder where it had its mail held and if it owes any back taxes?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
[quote]On 2008-06-08 00:39, Dustin Baker wrote:
[quote]On 2008-06-08 00:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-06-07 23:47, Dustin Baker wrote:


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


You still have provided ZERO instances of this.

Quote:


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?


Are you really claiming this? Fossils contain NO organic matter. NOBODY uses C14 to date fossils.

Quote:
I'm sorry John, replace the word "fossils" with "bones". Feel better?
It's my fault really. I made the mistake of assuming that, after several posts of you blabbering nonsense and trying to make-up new subjects, I could get a reprieve for a single word error. Let's not forget that I said, "...fossils and other archaeological items." by the way.

I've provided you with everything you've asked for John (several times). You keep changing the subject, posting a new challenge, or trying to make-up new issues. Frankly, the fact that you're stooping to such a sad level ("fossil" vs "bones") is rather pathetic.

You seem to fancy yourself to be a scientific mind; and, like most of our era, you ignore anything that doesn't support your view, you change your argument whenever you're proven wrong, you call "do-over" or "that doesn't count" whenever your challenges are met, and you spew pseudo-scientific dribble in an attempt to sound intelligent - praying that it will intimidate people enought to keep them from questioning you.

Frankly John, I get enough of such discussion from talking to the average teenager; and frankly, I expect better from a "grown-up" like yourself.

Well, I've already met every challenge you've asked of me; so I see no point in participating in your "do-over".

Enjoy folks.


Dustin, try addressing my points without resorting to rudeness.

Ignoring all the extra bits, all I ask is this. Produce one instance of peer-reviewed science that abuses C14 dating. If you can't, then what are you going on about?

John


Quote:
On 2008-06-08 00:40, Dustin Baker wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-06-08 00:31, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Tell the truth, Dustin. Have you read Putnam's article?

It was published in Scandinavian Political Studies, Volume 30 Issue 2 Pages 137-174, June 2007.

When you've read it, let us know about what he actually says in the article.

John

Yet another subject I said nothing about John. Thank you for proving my point further.

LOL You said nothing about Putnam's article? Oh right, you criticized him and his research without reading his article.

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
NJJ
View Profile
Inner circle
6439 Posts

Profile of NJJ
[quote]On 2008-06-07 23:57, Dustin Baker wrote:
Quote:
I used a similar idea when the local community college asked me to do a show for their graduation party. Half the faculty loved it, half of them hated it, but all the students seemed to enjoy it.

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.

Quote:
True, but let's flip that around > I would be suspicious of any claims made by a scientist who's paycheck relies on him making a "big find". Just because he may know what he's talking about, doesn't mean he's telling the truth.


Sure - I'd very suspicious of the scientific claims made by political aligned think tanks, commercial entities and religious organisations. All three have a vested interested in pushing a particular view point.

Science is not about finding 'the truth' but is about finding the most likely outcome based on ALL of the evidence. That outcome is open to reinterpretation when new data becomes available.

This is why scientific analysis is opened to peer review, to get as many opinions on a subject, to allow it to grow and change as we learn more and more. Religious organisations tend to skip that step - leaping straight from the theory to the textbook!
Micheal Leath
View Profile
Inner circle
1045 Posts

Profile of Micheal Leath
Quote:
On 2008-06-08 00:39, Dustin Baker wrote:

You seem to fancy yourself to be a scientific mind; and, like most of our era, you ignore anything that doesn't support your view, you change your argument whenever you're proven wrong, you call "do-over" or "that doesn't count" whenever your challenges are met, and you spew pseudo-scientific dribble in an attempt to sound intelligent - praying that it will intimidate people enought to keep them from questioning you.



I would say:

You seem to fancy yourself to be a Creationist; and, like all of you, you ignore anything that doesn't support your view, you change your argument whenever you're proven wrong, you call "do-over" or "that doesn't count" whenever your challenges are met, and you spew non-scientific dribble in an attempt to sound intelligent - praying (to your non-existant god) that it will intimidate people enough to keep them from questioning you.

It's clear that those who think science is oh so bad or wrong really don't understand basic concepts. It reminds me of conspiracy theorist who think they know the truth. They think they know more than experts who debunk whatever crazy nonsense the come up with.

"Science does something that religion never does, and never will do:
science welcomes and incorporates facts as they are presented, whether
they agree with the theory to which they apply, or not, and adjusts any
discovery to incorporate the newly-discovered evidence – thus growing
and improving the view we have of reality. Science is never “proven” –
it offers a view that explains the world as we see it, a view that is subject
to improvement, adjustment, or even reversal, if the facts require that to
be done; science gets better by discrete steps, getting closer to the truth,
with each step. Religion, on the other hand, is set, hardened, incorrigible,
dogmatic, and incapable of changing its notions. It rules as a dictator,
denying any and all facts that oppose its dogma. It does not grow."

-James Randi
GlenD
View Profile
Inner circle
LosAngeles, Ca
1298 Posts

Profile of GlenD
Ok, so who here believes science is pure and completely free of political influence? We can argue details and examples all day long but my only point was in taking caution with reported findings. By the way, I do believe we are on the brink of science gone mad with regard to the economy and public interest in general. If the U.S. economy is bad now or in a recession just wait until the eco-laws come fully into effect all justified by science telling us that we will save the planet! Or fail to do so if we don't act now!
Isn't this fun?

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!)
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
GlenD, that's a strawman.

Nobody believes that science is free of humanity.

My point is that if you are going to critique anything, check your facts. If you have reasons to believe that estimating the age of bacteria found in ice has anything to do with the US economy, "eco-laws" or anything else in your post, please share those reasons with us.

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
How can science be free of humanity? That statement makes no sense. Please explain.
"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!)
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2008-06-08 22:21, GlenD wrote:
How can science be free of humanity? That statement makes no sense. Please explain.


I made the opposite point in my previous post.

"Nobody believes that science is free of humanity."

Are you agreeing with this statement? Or doubting it?

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
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Science is not about how you feel about things per-se - possibly excepting psychology but let's stick to the the larger world of experience here.

Religion offers much for the sentimental side of how you experience life and that's fine - really - wonderful even - enjoy

BUT - we get in trouble when we confuse the scientific model of what is with a presumed view from outside sometimes called "objective". The notion of such a view was dismissed from science in the early twentieth century - so until we have some feedback from someone "outside" our perspective ... that issue has gone moot.

So we have a model - built by rational experiment on a mechanistic/deterministic framework. It's a model. Always up for reconstruction and refinement when new data supports a more elegant and computationally useful view. It's still a model. It works darn well - so well it's not unforgivable to confuse it with what "really" is - regressing to that "objective" from outside again.

Can we please keep our discussions of what we wish to believe or have been told to believe separate from discussions of what the collected evidence in total seems to support as a sensible model?

Someday we may get to meet "others" from "elsewhere" and enjoy looking at science and mathematics that comes in "humanity free" texts. Will be interesting and I hope something we can face up to with acceptance rather than mere tolerance.

So let it be typed, so let it be posted, so says my cat.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
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
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.33 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