Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus

[creekster]

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.

That is a foolish and short-sighted conclsuion without considering context and purpose, but it does let you ignore what else he said.

[BigFatMeanie]

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.

A typical SU answer - "anyone that doesn't think like me is self-delusional or disingenuous". No attempt to explain why or how it is a misconception. No attempt to find common ground or understand where the other person is coming from. No attempt to address any other arguments or aspects of my post. Your powers of persuasion are staggering.

If I have no credibility then feel free to put me on ignore.

I'm out.

BFM

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Are you trying to be funny?

Mike, why don't you start a forum called "Book of Mormon scientific proofs" where articles about Thor Hyerdal and ancient chicken bones in the Americas and such can be posted.

Seattle, rather than go after Mike for a link to an article that he didn't post, why don't you enlighten us as to why you think that old chicken bones are a bunch of crap?

I know, I know. You have no interest in discussing something that may prove you wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This article summarizes the arguments used by Biblical literalists to critique carbon dating.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Clearly this is not a scientific source. However it is my understanding that scientists are largely satisfied with the radiocarbon approach, and take measures to accommodate for weaknesses in the method. The argument against carbon dating is primarily ad hoc, AFAIK.

Wow. That's a fascinating article. If you are using a global flood to buttress your argument about a scientific point, you know you are really stretching. These folks make the FARMS crowd look like Nobel Prize winners.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wow. That's a fascinating article. If you are using a global flood to buttress your argument about a scientific point, you know you are really stretching. These folks make the FARMS crowd look like Nobel Prize winners.

That's what I grew up with. Nice, huh?

Edit: Incidentally, I generally try to post authoritative, unbiased sources. But where the argument against carbon dating is concerned, I couldn't find any unbiased sources.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

That's what I grew up with. Nice, huh?

Edit: Incidentally, I generally try to post authoritative, unbiased sources. But where the argument against carbon dating is concerned, I couldn't find any unbiased sources.

What about wikipedia?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What about wikipedia?

Dangit. Did I forget to search wikipedia again? I don't know what's gotten into me.

Actually, now I'm curious. I wonder if wikipedia even lists the criticism of carbon dating.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is a foolish and short-sighted conclsuion without considering context and purpose, but it does let you ignore what else he said.

Look creekster, as I'm sure you know, religious people saying scientists engage in a faith of their own is tired and meaningless cant. Faith is not part of scientists' lexicon, not part of their dicipline. It's tiresome to see religious people force feeding that word to them. Sceintists most emphatically reject the notion that as scientists they rely on faith, and they have plenty of self-awarenes and in terms of their work they are not charlatans. Scientific study has plenty of fruits to show for itself.

Yes, scientific hypotheses and theories are fraught with uncertainties. That is what science is all about. But scientists do not respond to uncertainty with faith in any shape or form. People who claim that are invariably not scientists (we have two real scietists here that I know of and neither would claim that scientists employ a kind of religious-like faith) and are either uninformed or pushing an agenda.

Scientists respond to uncertainty by investigating phenomena and acquiring new kowledge through a rigorous, highly disciplined methodology involving , among other things, gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. Also by these techniques previous data is corrected and integrated.

It's not faith goddamnit. It just isn't. Scientists don't think it is. So why do religious people try tell them it is? Because those who do it ultimately don't place a high intrinsic value on truth. And that's what pisses me off in the final analysis.

[tooblue]

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.

You're now kidding right? Or rather perhaps I should wright the reason you contrive arguments is to support your view of the world and disdain of Mormon faith to mask your guilt and longing for peace of mind when you actively engaged the spirit.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Look creekster, as I'm sure you know, religious people saying scientists engage in a faith of their own is tired and meaningless cant. Faith is not part of scientists' lexicon, not part of their dicipline. It's tiresome to see religious people force feeding that word to them. Sceintists most emphatically reject the notion that as scietists they rely on faith, and they have plenty of self-awarenes and in terms of their work they are not charlatans. Scientific study has plenty of fruits to show for itself.

Yes, scientific hypotheses and theories are fraught with uncertainties. That is what science is all about. But scientists do not respond to uncertainty with faith in any shape or form. People who claim that are invariably not scientists (we have two real scietists here that I know of and neither would claim that scientists employ a kind of religious-like faith) and are either uninformed or pushing an agenda.

Scientists respond to uncertainty by investigating phenomena and acquiring new kowledge through a rigorous, highly disciplined methodology involving , among other things, gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. Also by these techniques previous data is corrected and integrated.

It's not faith goddamnit. It just isn't. Scientists don't think it is. So why do religious people try tell them it is? Because those who do it ultimately don't place a high intrinsic value on truth. And that's what pisses me off in the final analysis.

It's tiresome for you to hear people of faith force feeding something in which they believe to be true?

We know how you feel, Seattle.