Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The reason people such as the article Barbara posted contrive arguments against carbon dating is to try to support the Biblical timeline.

Again, why is this relevant? I haven't said anything about the Bible.

We all know you are a bitter apostate that clings to science as evidence that Mormonism is all a crock. I don't think there's a soul on here that isn't well aware of where you stand on this issue. That being the case, there's no need for you to turn an unrelated discussion into a stage for your personal issues with religion.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Draw your own conclusions:

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...n_chicken.html

What are your conclusions?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Again, why is this relevant? I haven't said anything about the Bible.

We all know you are a bitter apostate that clings to science as evidence that Mormonism is all a crock. I don't think there's a soul on here that isn't well aware of where you stand on this issue. That being the case, there's no need for you to turn an unrelated discussion into a stage for your personal issues with religion.

I'm sorry you think I'm bitter. Others here have told me I exhibit a fine sense of humor here.

You seem bitter about science. Do you reject carbon dating because it's science? Why do you think you have license to critique carbon dating employing the scientific method in doing so?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm sorry you think I'm bitter. Others here have told me I exhibit a fine sense of humor here.

You seem bitter about science. Do you reject carbon dating because it's science? Why do you think you have license to critique carbon dating employing the scientific method in doing so?

Do you think this evidence does or does not have a tendecny to prove mormonism? I think it is interesting, but it seems ot show very little beyond supporting the sometimes hard to believe tales of ancient polynesian open ocean sailing feats.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm sorry you think I'm bitter. Others here have told me I exhibit a fine sense of humor here.

You seem bitter about science. Do you reject carbon dating because it's science? Why do you think you have license to critique carbon dating employing the scientific method in doing so?

Fine sense of humor...yeah, not so much. Every post I read (and I'm willing to admit that I don't read many of them anymore) of yours has been, imo, designed to lure people into trying to prove to you that the church is true. In fact, similar to what I'm experiencing in this thread when out of the blue comes this accusation about the Earth being 6K years old. What if I'd said yes? You would've loved that. It would have given you all kinds of license to turn this into a "look at the idiot Mormon that has deluded herself into believing crazy things that science disproves" thread.

Because I don't put much stock in carbon dating I'm now bitter about all science? That's quite a bit of stretching you're doing there.

I think I've been clear about why I don't trust carbon dating. Why don't you go back and read through the thread, and if you have any specific questions you'd like to ask, perhaps I can answer them for you.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What's your point? Do you claim the earth is 6,000 years old? Is that it?

Dude, I don't know you personally and I generally try to avoid attacking other posters. The being said, I think you are a complete asshole based on the persona you portray on this board. Your constant bashing of, snide remarks abouts, and underhanded digs at religion/faith/mormonism are getting rather old. BDB doesn't need me to defend her nor did she ask me to but I'll go ahead and do it:

Nowhere did BDB claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. She expressed some skepticism (of which you are a big proponent when it suits your purposes) about RCD and about its accuracy as the objects in question get older and older.

Unless I'm mistaken, the maximum radiocarbon age limit is somewhere around 60K years at which point you can't distinguish between the carbon decay in the object and that of background radiation. Thus, BDB's skepticism about RCD in general, while not pertinent to the chicken bones discussed in this thread, is not entirely unfounded or unreasonable.

The bottom line is that scientists rely on faith just like other people do. Only with scientists it's not faith in supernatural stuff - it's faith in their framework: faith in theories, hypotheses, logic, and their own judgement. No, I don't think RCD is wrong or unreliable or completely inaccurate. I don't think science is evil and I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That being said, I don't treat someone that is expressing polite skepticism about a specific scientfic precept as kooky or whacko or silly or a nut or a moron or completely ignorant/stupid/uneducated.

If your goal is to educate/enlighten you would be much more effective if you condescended from your lofty position every once in a while and tried to talk to people on their own terms, tried to understand what they are saying, and tried to value them as individuals even though they may not think like you do. As it is, your general assholiness seems to get in the way and makes me not want to listen to anything you have to say.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Do you think this evidence does or does not have a tendecny to prove mormonism? I think it is interesting, but it seems ot show very little beyond supporting the sometimes hard to believe tales of ancient polynesian open ocean sailing feats.

I'm not sure what Mormonism is anymore. I'm not sure Mormonism knows. For example, it doesn't tend to prove all aborigines are descendants of a sixth century B.C. Jew. If you keep diminishing what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be pretty soon there's not much left to analyze is there. The incredibly shrinking book.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

The bottom line is that scientists rely on faith just like other people do.

This is a common misconception, self-delusion or disingenuous statement depending on how informed is the speaker. Anyone makes this assertion loses all credibility with me.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not sure what Mormonism is anymore. I'm not sure Mormonism knows. For example, it doesn't tend to prove all aborigines are descendants of a sixth century B.C. Jew. If you keep diminishing what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be pretty soon there's not much left to analyze is there. The incredibly shrinking book.

Did someone have a bad day in court?

I didn't diminish Mormonism, althouh you tried to (again). Your image of it may be diminsihed by this evidence, but mine isn't.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is a common misconception, self-delusion or disingenuous statement depending on how informed is the speaker. Anyone makes this assertion loses all credibility with me.

What a suprise. Didn't see that one coming.