New uranium time dating method:

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem was there was no organic material in the paint itself. There was no C14 to measure, so they used the stalagmites around the paint or the deposits on the paint of the calcium deposits on top of the paint.

How about the Shroud of Turin?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Quoting from talkorigins.org again. Remember my young hero called that the "Holy Grail for Atheists".

Its not a 'holy grail of atheists'.

A holy grail is something you go searching for and try to find.

Talk Origins is a site WE created as a repository and source of information about science and
specifically evolution and the our origins.

I am linking to it because it's a good source of information on science and atheistic points of view
because we made it that way.

You ask us what WE think and what OUR evidence is and then complain when I point you to a website
WE created to do just that.

Your 'young hero' was either a parody (a poe) or was a moron just like you.

Either way, in this particular instance he is evidently talking nonsense because as I say a 'holy grail' is
something you go looking for not something you make.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about the Shroud of Turin?

Why would you be bringing up that fake from the 1300's when we are talking about cave art perhaps 40,000 years old?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why would you be bringing up that fake from the 1300's when we are talking about cave art perhaps 40,000 years old?

Because it hasn't been officially dated by any scientific method. The original C-14 dating has been found to be a mistake by those doing the dating. I gave a link to that a long time ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

Originally posted by googlefudge
Its not a 'holy grail of atheists'.

A holy grail is something you go searching for and try to find.

Talk Origins is a site WE created as a repository and source of information about science and
specifically evolution and the our origins.

I am linking to it because it's a good source of information on science and atheistic points of view
beca ...[text shortened]... because as I say a 'holy grail' is
something you go looking for not something you make.

I agree with him. It is a "holy grail for atheists". 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree with him. It is a "holy grail for atheists". 😏

And again, you are a moron, so what you think is really not relevant.

Absolute proof that there were no such thing as gods might be a thing that could be
considered a 'holy grail' for atheists, if we had any need of such a thing.

However as I said the talk origins site is one we have created as a repository of information
and arguments against creationism and for origins science including evolution.
(focusing on evolution because that's what creationists do)

This is therefore not a 'holy grail' by definition.

We made it, and we know where to find it, it's not a holy grail.

It would be like me saying that the bible was the holy grail of Christians...

It's just not, you all have one (or more) and you [as a group, and in the past] wrote the damn thing.

You are not searching for it as you already own it.

It's not a holy grail.

Neither is the talk origins site.


Claiming otherwise is just stupid...

Which is why I fully expect you to keep doing it.

Because you are the very definition of stupid.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The news is an unbelievably crappy place to get scientific information from and judging scientists
by the crap that gets reported in the news is like judging them based on what you were told after
a long game of Chinese whispers.

The real science will always have contained error bars and discussions of potential problems and
inaccuracies.

Wha ...[text shortened]... gets more wrong.


"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

The news I'm speaking of were interviews with the so called experts that always came up with the dates and seemed to pretty much state them as fact just as you yourself are saying these NEW ways are fact.
So when exactly are we to believe they are fact? Let me know...OK?

Originally posted by galveston75
The news I'm speaking of were interviews with the so called experts that always came up with the dates and seemed to pretty much state them as fact just as you yourself are saying these NEW ways are fact.
So when exactly are we to believe they are fact? Let me know...OK?

I suspect that the problem is that you didn't actually listen to the figures last time, or this time. The figures given in the current report are not stated as exact. They are given as estimates with error margins. I think you will find that the previous reports you are claiming have been proven wrong were also given as estimates with error margins and that the new figure in fact fits well within the error margins of the old one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect that the problem is that you didn't actually listen to the figures last time, or this time. The figures given in the current report are not stated as exact. They are given as estimates with error margins. I think you will find that the previous reports you are claiming have been proven wrong were also given as estimates with error margins and that the new figure in fact fits well within the error margins of the old one.

You said yourself, the dates are estimates with errors, not facts. Any new dates will also be estimates with errors, not facts. It is simply a guessing game to make it agree with theories. That is not science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said yourself, the dates are estimates with errors, not facts. Any new dates will also be estimates with errors, not facts. It is simply a guessing game to make it agree with theories. That is not science.

On the contrary, that is exactly science. In your mind, the error bar is huge. In fact the errors they strive for are like 10%, 5%, 1%, figures like that so a date for an artifact dated, say 19,000 years old would have a lower error margin than one dated 35,000 years old so the 19K yo one would be say, error of 5% and the 35K yo object would be like 10%, but you think the error bar is 100%. That would not be science, that is religion in action.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said yourself, the dates are estimates with errors, not facts. Any new dates will also be estimates with errors, not facts. It is simply a guessing game to make it agree with theories. That is not science.

No, I did not say they were estimates with errors. I said they were estimates with error margins. But you probably don't know the difference.
Estimates with error margins can be facts. And no, its not simply a guessing game.

Originally posted by sonhouse
On the contrary, that is exactly science. In your mind, the error bar is huge. In fact the errors they strive for are like 10%, 5%, 1%, figures like that so a date for an artifact dated, say 19,000 years old would have a lower error margin than one dated 35,000 years old so the 19K yo one would be say, error of 5% and the 35K yo object would be like 10%, but you think the error bar is 100%. That would not be science, that is religion in action.

What you don't realize is that the age of the Earth is less the 19,000 years.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I did not say they were estimates with errors. I said they were estimates with error margins. But you probably don't know the difference.
Estimates with error margins can be facts. And no, its not simply a guessing game.

It amounts to the same thing. It is pure speculation masquerading as science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It amounts to the same thing. It is pure speculation masquerading as science.

All you have is poo this, poo poo that, you have nothing but your own pathetic opinion pretending it is science when it is in fact you just parroting the words of other people who think they know the bible.

There is no science in anything you say and there never will be. Only your pathetic attempt to DESTROY science.

You are not interested in actually adding to the knowledge base of mankind, only in building up the political fight over religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It amounts to the same thing.

No, its not the same thing at all. But as I thought, you lack the education to know this. At first I thought you were going senile and were forgetting stuff in your old age, but I am now suspecting you never got the education in the first place and your claims to have some basic engineering knowledge are as fake as your chess rating.