"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

4 Intelligence
Just as Dembski fails to give a positive account of the second half of "intelligent design", he also fails to define the first half: intelligence. Intelligence, and intelligent agents, are treated as unfathomable mysteries beyond human comprehension, and not explainable by natural causes. Intelligence is a virtual phenomenon that is a found in its most developed form on Earth in Humans. It is observed to not exist within non-intelligently designed phenomena.

He writes "I will argue that intelligent agency, even when conditioned by a physical system that embodies it, cannot be reduced to natural causes without remainder. Moreover, I will argue that specified complexity is precisely the remainder that remains unaccounted for. Indeed, I will argue that the defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create novel information and, in particular, specified complexity." [19, p. xiv]
5 True
Dembski does not accept that intelligence itself could arise purely through natural processes, via evolution: It has never been observed to arise through non-intelligently directed processes ... so this a scientifically valid contention, on Dembski's part.
"Out pop purpose, intelligence, and design from a process that started with no purpose, intelligence, or design. This is magic." [19, p. 369]
But this skepticism is apparently based in part on belief in a sharp distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent causes: agency is always either natural or intelligent, and cannot be both. There is a sharp distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent causes ... otherwise every shooter down through History could never be convicted because s/he could always claim that the bullet fired itself ... and have this plea accepte, if juries truly believed that there isn't a sharp distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent causes!!!
But what if purpose, intelligence, and design are words we assign to emergent properties of complex systems? What if intelligence is not a binary classification, but a multifactorial gradation, with thermostats and bacteria being only slightly intelligent, and computers and rats more so? ... and what if the Moon was made of blue cheese?
The key scientific issue is what we observe ... and we don't observe intelligence or its product complex specificity to be emergent from anything other than from the previous or current action(s) of intelligence.

J C

Intelligent agency always receives preferential treatment in Dembski's analysis: in his explanatory filter framework, he never allows hypotheses involving intelligent agents to be eliminated. Hypotheses involving intelligent agents should only be eliminated when they are shown to be invalid ... and/or when a hypothesis involving a non-intelligent agent has been proven to be the case
Consider his analysis of the Nicholas Caputo case. Caputo was an Essex County, New Jersey official charged with deciding assigning the order of political parties on the ballot in local elections. Caputo, a Democrat, chose the Democrats first in 40 of 41 elections.
Writing D for Democrat and R for Republican, Dembski proposes considering the string
c = DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
that represents the sequence of choices to head the ballot. Did Caputo cheat?
When Dembski analyzes this case, he applies his "generic chance elimination argument", which is supposed to "sweep the field clear" of all relevant chance hypotheses. (Chance hypotheses, in Dembski's idiosyncratic terminology, also include purely deterministic hypotheses in which no chance was actually involved.) What remains is the conclusion that Caputo's selections were due to the mysterious process Dembski calls design. The filter cannot and does not make any claims in relation to why or how phenomena are Intelligently Designed.

But in fact the only chance hypothesis that Dembski considers is that Caputo's selections arose by the flipping of a fair coin. He does not consider other possibilities, such as
(a) Caputo really had no choice in the assignment, since a mobster held a gun to his head.
on all but one occasion. (On that one occasion the mobster was out of town.)If this happened, this would also be intelligence in action (on the part of the mobster) ... the filter doesn't make any claim about why or how ID was deployed.
(b) Caputo, although he appears capable of making choices, is actually the victim of a severe brain disease that renders him incapable of writing the word \Republican". On one occasion his disease was in remission. This is special pleading of a very high degree ... such a disease has never been identified ... and the fact that he would have been able to write 'Democrat' means that anybody who believed this excuse would be very gullible indeed.
(c) Caputo was molested by a Republican at an early age, and the resulting trauma has caused a pathological hatred of Republicans. He therefore tends to favor Democrats, but on one occasion a Republican bought him a beer immediately prior to the ballot assignment. If it were true,this could imply bias ... and it would add further evidence to the indication that the result was intelligently designed.
(d) Caputo attempted to make his choices randomly, using the flip of a fair coin, but unknown to him, on all but one occasion he accidently used a two-headed trick coin from his son's magic chest. Furthermore, he was too dull-witted to remember assignments from previous ballots. Just another Intelligently designed excuse.COLOR]6
(e) Caputo himself is the product of a 3.8-billion-year-old evolutionary history involving both natural law and chance. The structure of Caputo's neural network has been shaped by both this history and his environment since conception. Evolution has shaped humans to act in a way to increase their relative reproductive success, and one evolved strategy to increase this success is seeking and maintaining social status.
Caputo's status depended on his respect from other Democrats, and his neural network, with its limited look-ahead capabilities, evaluated a fitness function that resulted in the strategy of placing Democrats first in order to maximize this status. Yet more Intelligently Designed excuses.

Quote William Dembski
The Explanatory Filter represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes

how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property

how insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off

how detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party

how forensic scientists are able reliably to place individuals at the scene of a crime

how skeptics debunk the claims of parapsychologists

how scientists identify cases of data falsification

how NASA's SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra- terrestrial life, and

how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits.

J C

What are we trying to say in this list of possibilities, some less serious than others? Simply that if Caputo flipping a fair coin is one of the possibilities to be eliminated, it is unclear why Caputo himself cannot figure in other chance hypotheses we would like to eliminate. Some of these chance hypotheses, such as (b), involve Caputo, but do not involve design as we understand the word. Like I have already said, hypothesis (b) has no credibility what-so-ever as the proposed 'disease' has never been observed.
Others involve design as generally understood. Hypothesis (e), which could well be the correct explanation, is based on a very complex causal chain of billions of steps, most of which we will probably be unable to judge the probability of with any certainty. Currently we cannot rule (e) in or out based solely on estimates of probability; we must rely on its consilience with other facets of science, including evolutionary biology, psychology, and neuroscience. It can easily be ruled out on the basis of the probability of specific biomolecules forming by a combination of chance and determininsm ... which are in excess of 10^100 for most individual biomolecules ... to say nothing about the (multiplicative) probability that they could randomly or deterministically organise themselves into biological systems, organs and body plans.
This leads us to what we see as one of the weakest points of Dembski's argument: if, as he suggests, design is always inferred simply by ruling out known hypotheses of chance and necessity, then any observed event with a suffciently complicated or obscure causal history could mistakenly be assigned to design, either because we cannot reliably estimate the probabilities of each step of that causal history, or because the actual steps themselves are currently unknown. We call this the "Erroneous Design Inference Principle", or EDIP.
It is known that all complex specified functional information, where the origin can be established, is intelligently designed ... so the people 'grasping at unfounded straws' are those who claim that this is not always the case ... and chance and necessity can produce CSI ... without a single example of where this has occurred being cited - either in theory or in practice

EDIP therefore remains an unfounded hypothesis in relation to ID ... because the test of Complex Specified Functional Information can be used used to definitively determine Intelligent Design, therby ruling out EDIP in relation to Intelligent Design.

The existence of EDIP receives confirmation from modern research in psychology. For one thing, humans are notoriously poor judges of probability [44]. Humans don't need to subjectivley assess the probability of living systems arising spontaneously ... it can be mathematically and objectively assessed ... and therefore subjective judgement isn't a factor at all in definitively determining ID.
On the other hand, humans are good detectors of patterns, even when they are not there [7, 96, 39, 80]. Patterns can be formed by random and/or deterministic processes ... so detecting patterns doesn't have any proof value, one way or the other in relation to ID.
Humans also have "agency-detection systems" which are "biased toward overdetection", a fact some have explained as consonant with an evolutionary history where systems for detecting prey were strongly selected for [4]. Again 'agency detection' isn't part of Intelligent Design detection ... like I have said we can scientifically and definitively detect ID ... but scientifically establishing who/what was the Intelligent Agent(s) that designed life is so difficult, that it may never be scientifically established ... but this shouldn't stop scientists trying.
Taken together, these factors suggest that it will be common for design to be inferred erroneously, and perhaps explains the large number of cases falling under the EDIP: ghosts, UFO's, and witchcraft. Ghosts, UFO's and witchcraft are not accessible to repeated physical observation and detection ... and thus are not within the cometence of science to assess.
Living systems are physically present and thus are accessible to scientific evaluation ... and this has been done ... and CFSI has been unambiguously detected in genetic information ... and thus life has been scientifically deemed to be of intelligent origin.

pH

I guess we can file all the above under the general heading of "be careful what you ask for (multiple times in many posts!).

Sarky

Except we actually asked for a debunking. I'm sure I would have remembered asking for a shoddy disagreement devoid of evidence.

J C

Assigning intelligent agency based on ignorance of the precise causal history of an event or the probabilities associated with a hypothesized route seems in opposition to Dembski's assertion that "frank admissions of ignorance are much to be preferred to overconfident claims to knowledge that cannot in the end be adequately justified" [19, p. 316]. The target
of this assertion is "Darwinism", but it seems to us far more apposite to Dembski's own conclusions about design. Darwinism is indeed based on unfounded beliefs in the powers of random and deterministic processes to produce CFSI ... even though these processes have never been observed to do so.
Intelligent Agency can be ascibed despite ignorance of the causal history of any artifact that contains CFSI.
The example of a sheet of paper with a written language printed on it can be definitively ascribed to an Intelligent Agency despite ignorance of the causal history of the sheet of paper ... and somebody could be convicted and hanged upon this certainty.

But back to our analysis of the Caputo case. If the only chance hypothesis that is being considered is that the sequence of ballot assignments resulted from the flips of a fair coin, then Dembski's analysis has little novelty to it. Dembski's Explantory Filter consists of Law (or determinism), Chance (or probability) and finally (Intelligent) Design
As Laplace wrote in 1819 [57, pp. 16{17]:In the game of heads and tails, if heads comes up a hundred times in a row then this appears to us extraordinary, because the almost infinite number of combinations that can arise in a hundred throws are divided in regular sequences, or those in which we observe a rule that is easy to grasp, and in irregular sequences, that are incomparably more numerous. True
Laplace's argument has been updated in modern form to reflect Kolmogorov complexity; see, for example, the wonderful article [51]. The probability that a string x of length n (whose bits are chosen with uniform probability p = 1/2) will have C(x) <=m can be shown to be <=2^m+1-n. The Kolmogorov complexity of c is very low (we cannot compute it exactly, but let's say for the sake of argument that C(c) <= 10). Thus the hypothesis that c is due flipping a fair coin has probability <= 2^-30, or about 1 in a billion, and it seems fair to reject it. This wouldn't be conclusive ... as the Law of Big Numbers would mean that if the experiment was repeated a billion times (which is only in Lotto orders of magnitude) the probability would be 'evens' that it would occur on one of these experiments.
However, the Kolmogorov complexity of a 100 chain amino acid critical sequence biomolecule choosing from 20 AAs at each point on the chain is <=10^-131 which is orders of magnitude beyond the estimated number of electrons in the Universe ... and thus it is a statistical impossibility to produce such specific functional bio-molecules using non-intelligently directed processes.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Except we actually asked for a debunking. I'm sure I would have remembered asking for a shoddy disagreement devoid of evidence.

I have carefully and comprehensively addressed every claim in the paper so far.

I have quoted the paper in its entirety as I have progressed to avoid the charge of 'cherry picking' what I have answered ... or the charge of quote mining or selective quoting.

I'll let the thread followers judge whether I have debunked it or not.

I'll stop now for tonight ... to give you guys a chance to respond with something more substantial than the nit-picking ad hominism that ye have engaged in, since I started reviewing the paper.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

I have carefully and comprehensively addressed every claim in the paper so far.

I'll let the thread followers judge whether I have debunked it or not.

I'll stop now to give you guys a chance to respond with something more substantial than the nit-picking ad hominism that ye have done to date, since I started reviewing the paper.

No, the blue text is just a bunch of unfounded opinions. The opinions are completely devoid of referenceing. You are wasting your time because you are not proving/disproving anything.

Sarky

I was honestly wondering how far he'd get before running out of steam. I have the depressing suspicion he'd have done that all the way to the end without a trace of irony. I'm just not cruel enough to let him do that to himself.

If you're going to do it J C , do it PROPERLY. Anything else is a massive waste of time, mostly your own.

J C

... so ye guys cite a paper ye claim to debunk ID ... I read it and say that it doesn't ... and I ask ye to show me where it does this.

Ye refused to do so ... and ye ask me to critically evaluate the paper ... even though it wasn't my cited paper, in the first place.

... and ye badgered me to do so for the past year...

... and when I have begun to comprehensively evaluate the claims in the paper all ye can now respond with is nit-picking ad hominisms ... and not even a mention of any claim in the paper.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... so ye guys cite a paper ye claim to debunk ID ... I read it and say that it doesn't ... and I ask ye to show me where it does this.

Ye refused to do so ... and ye ask me to critically evaluate the paper ... even though it wasn't my cited paper, in the first place.

... and ye badgered me to do so for the past year...

... and when I have begun to comprehensively evaluate the claims in the paper all ye can now respond with is nit-picking ad hominisms ... and not even a mention of any claim in the paper.

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread anymore but this is getting absurd.

I don't see why you need to be shown where the paper debunks ID, considering debunking this CSI nonsense is the main focus of the paper.

You were asked to 'critically evaluate' the paper because you're the one who disagrees with it. If any of us who argee with the paper were doing so, we'd just basically be repeating what they say. I'm not sure exactly what you're expecting?

What you are doing is not comprehensively evaluating anything. You're essentially adding blue text saying 'yes this is correct' beside Dembski's claims, and 'no this is incorrect' beside the author's claims. You are backing this up with no evidence. It is entirely your opinion. This is not how science works. So either a) You're lying about having a science background, b) You know you've been backed into a corner and are resorting to this in an attempt to get out of it or c) You're trolling.

Whichever one it is doesn't matter too much for me, I'm only coming here for entertainment at this stage.

Lucy8080

im taking no position here.( bar my own) id even like to play with both sides...or explore...depending on my humour.

but i will say this...

j.c. has risen to the challenge...and i respect him/her for doing so.

has been polite. has asked for an easing up of personal attack...an honourable request i.m.o.

and put in time to engage.

science should work without prejudice...

and if j.c. comes up with some new science..

it by no means proves a religion/or disproves...it just gives us new science.

gl both sides. play nice.

Doctor Jimbob

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im taking no position here.( bar my own) id even like to play with both sides...or explore...depending on my humour.

but i will say this...

j.c. has risen to the challenge...and i respect him/her for doing so.

has been polite. has asked for an easing up of personal attack...an honourable request i.m.o.

and put in time to engage.

science should work without prejudice...

and if j.c. comes up with some new science..

it by no means proves a religion/or disproves...it just gives us new science.

gl both sides. play nice.

The thing is though, J.C has not risen to the challenge. He (I think he's a he, apologies if i got that one wrong) has avoided questions in uncountable different ways, dismissed easily verifiable scienticic theories as if they are nonsense for no reason other than he wants to, while claiming his alternatives are more scientifically sound, without actually backing it up with any evidence.

As for the easing up of personal attack bit, well, J.C has been quick enough to get his own digs in, he's just more subtle about it. Speaking for myself, there's nothing personal intented with anything I've said, it just gets a bit frustrating when someone dismisses fact as nonsense just because.

Science should work without prejudice if the argument can be backed up by any scientific evidence. If I claimed gravity isn't actually a thing, and its effects can more accurately be explained by a giant rat which orbits the globe at light speed, using its RDGI (Made up acronym) to exert force on the earth, would i expect to be taken seriously? Of course not. Because it's ridiculous, and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to back it up.

If J.C could prove himself correct, I'd have absolutely no issue with coming on here and eating humble pie. Becuase as someone with a background in science, new knowledge is an excellent thing in my eyes. And I think the same could be said for most others on this thread.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Science should work without prejudice if the argument can be backed up by any scientific evidence.

Science should be without prejudice, full stop.
If an argument isn't backed up by any repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) evidence then this fact should be politely pointed out with specific examples of where these errors have been committed ...

... and 'strawmanning' about giant rats and gravity ... when neither the 'paper' or myself are talking about rats or gravity isn't addressing the points at issue in relation to the ID paper.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If I claimed gravity isn't actually a thing, and its effects can more accurately be explained by a giant rat which orbits the globe at light speed, using its RDGI (Made up acronym) to exert force on the earth, would i expect to be taken seriously? Of course not. Because it's ridiculous, and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to back it up.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If J.C could prove himself correct, I'd have absolutely no issue with coming on here and eating humble pie. Becuase as someone with a background in science, new knowledge is an excellent thing in my eyes. And I think the same could be said for most others on this thread.

Evolutionists don't do 'humble pie' ... and I don't particulary want them to eat it either ... I just wish they would do themselves a little more justice, rather than making a show of themselves by 'strawmanning', 'hand-waving' and engaging in ad hominisms ... instead of addressing the scientific issues at hand.

I used be an Evolutionist ... and I too denied that 'M2M' ('Microbes to Man') Evolution was a load of baloney for a long time ... so I understand and feel your pain.;)

Sarky

So are you going to edit all the evidence into your posts so far, or are you going to start again with an actual scientific critique? Because what you've done so far is, honestly, rubbish, just unfounded opinions and disagreeing. Not a single reference, not one mathematical example. You haven't backed up a single sentence. That's not science, J C, that's preaching. Try harder. Act like someone with the scientific credentials you keep telling us you have.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

So are you going to edit all the evidence into your posts so far, or are you going to start again with an actual scientific critique? Because what you've done so far is, honestly, rubbish, just unfounded opinions and disagreeing. Not a single reference, not one mathematical example. You haven't backed up a single sentence. That's not science, J C, that's preaching. Try harder. Act like someone with the scientific credentials you keep telling us you have.

I have reviewed the paper so far in a scientifically valid manner ... what I have been reviewing to date are various assertions made in the 'paper' about ID in general and Dembski's published papers in particular ... and my approach is therefore scientifically valid.

If you feel that I have made any errors of logic or fact, please point them out.

... otherwise, please sit back ... and read on ... you might learn something you don't appear to know already ... that ID is scientifically valid ... and 'M2M' Evolution only exists in the minds of assorted Materialists.;)

With love ... J C.

Sarky

So you're not going to bother with backing up your claims with so much as a single reference?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

So you're not going to bother with backing up your claims with so much as a single reference?

Later in my review perhaps ... in any event, references to ID and Creation Science research are unlikely to satisfy you anyway.

ID research is 'cutting edge' ... and it doesn't appear to have been replicated by 'M2M' Evolutionist scientists ... they seem to be like the Medieval Popes with heliocentrism ... in denial of the whole thing ... and not prepared to even consider it!!!:)

It seems to be against their religion !!!:):D

Mr. Boo

Right. So it's (c) then. You're trolling.

I think that wraps it up nicely.

Sarky

gg shots all

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Right. So it's (c) then. You're trolling.

I think that wraps it up nicely.

Where have I trolled?

... I was making an in-depth scientific assessment of the anti-ID paper before this diversion (by you guys) occurred.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

Where have I trolled?

... I was making an in-depth scientific assessment of the anti-ID paper before this diversion (by you guys) occurred.

It was neither in-depth nor scientific, and no-one is under the illusion that you think it was. At best, it was your opinion, and nothing more.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Science should be without prejudice, full stop.
If an argument isn't backed up by any repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) evidence then this fact should be politely pointed out with specific examples of where these errors have been committed ...

... and 'strawmanning' about giant rats and gravity ... when neither the 'paper' or myself are talking about rats or gravity isn't addressing the points at issue in relation to the ID paper.

Evolutionists don't do 'humble pie' ... and I don't particulary want them to eat it either ... I just wish they would do themselves a little more justice, rather than making a show of themselves by 'strawmanning', 'hand-waving' and engaging in ad hominisms ... instead of addressing the scientific issues at hand.

I used be an Evolutionist ... and I too denied that 'M2M' ('Microbes to Man') Evolution was a load of baloney for a long time ... so I understand and feel your pain.;)

Science is without prejudice if the arguments can be backed up by facts. Yours can't. This is the key problem here. You want people to point out the errors in your argument, go read that paper again. It sums up the flaws in the whole CSI nonsense pretty well. You have yet to make an argument against it. You just keep saying it isn't true. That is not a scientific argument.

Really, you're going to accuse me of 'strawmanning'? Because it's not like you've resorted to ridiculous arguments like that at all. That was kind of my point.

Don't tell me what I do or don't do either. I have no issue admitting it when I'm proved wrong. Also, it would be nice if you stopped using the word 'evolutionists' as if it applies to anyone arguing with you on here as a group. It doesn't. You seem to think everyone is brushing off what you're saying because they don't want to believe it. The real reason is you have no proof.

And there's another piece of your subtle attempts to make everyone else look like idiots with this 'M2M' nonsense. A more accurate way to describe evolution would be Microbe 2 slightly more advanced microbe 2 slightly more advanced microbe 2....you get the idea. I hope. Of course I still think you're trolling, I just feel like I should argue this in case someone else comes on here and thinks you might actualy have a point.

J C wrote: »

I have reviewed the paper so far in a scientifically valid manner ... what I have been reviewing to date are various assertions made in the 'paper' about ID in general and Dembski's published papers in particular ... and my approach is therefore scientifically valid.

If you feel that I have made any errors of logic or fact, please point them out.

... otherwise, please sit back ... and read on ... you might learn something you don't appear to know already ... that ID is scientifically valid ... and 'M2M' Evolution only exists in the minds of assorted Materialists.;)

With love ... J C.

You have not reviewed anything in a scientifically valid manner. If I turned the kind of thing you're writing in to my lecturers at college they'd have assumed I was taking the piss.

J C wrote: »

Later in my review perhaps ... in any event, references to ID and Creation Science research are unlikely to satisfy you anyway.

ID research is 'cutting edge' ... and it doesn't appear to have been replicated by 'M2M' Evolutionist scientists ... they seem to be like the Medieval Popes with heliocentrism ... in denial of the whole thing ... and not prepared to even consider it!!!:)

It seems to be against their religion !!!:):D

You can't just decide you may or may not use reference when you're critiscising a scientific paper like this. You just can't. It just isn't how it works. At all. No. Just...no. Can I be more clear?

ID research is not cutting edge either, it's just the latest way of describing Creationist 'science'. Of course it wasn't been replicated by scientists, because it isn't science.

Actually, a large amount of evolutionary biologists are religious people. They just have the common sense to view Creationism as a metaphor rather than a science. Religion and Science are not incompatible, unless you're using religion to prove science wrong.

Phew!

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

ID research is 'cutting edge' ... and it doesn't appear to have been replicated by 'M2M' Evolutionist scientists ...

LOL, yeah sure it is. Like when 'ID scientists' erroneously dated diamonds and coal to be less than 60,000 years old. Some real cutting edge stuff there

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

LOL, yeah sure it is. Like when 'ID scientists' erroneously dated diamonds and coal to be less than 60,000 years old. Some real cutting edge stuff there

LOL, you mean the non-ID, non-Creation Science W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California where natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with Evolutionist 'ages' in excess of 100 Ma yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.:eek::D:)
Reference Taylor RE, Southon J (2007). "Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259: 282–28. Bibcode 2007NIMPB.259..282T. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239.

When you're in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It was neither in-depth nor scientific, and no-one is under the illusion that you think it was. At best, it was your opinion, and nothing more.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You can't just decide you may or may not use reference when you're critiscising a scientific paper like this. You just can't. It just isn't how it works. At all. No. Just...no. Can I be more clear?

I feel your pain ... and I can assure you that Jesus loves you and wants to Save and prosper you.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

You mean the non-ID, non-Creation Science W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California where natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with Evolutionist 'ages' in excess of 100 Ma yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.:eek::D:)
Reference Taylor RE, Southon J (2007). "Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259: 282–28. Bibcode 2007NIMPB.259..282T. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239.

When you are in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)

No, it didn't. You cannot carbon-date diamonds and coal. I've already explained this to you. I also explained how subterranean decays of uranium-thorium isotope series can produce quantities of carbon-14, which is reflected on local coal or diamond deposits.

Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out in simpler English for you?

housetypeb

[QUOTE=J C;

When you're in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)[/QUOTE]

Or in your case, start digging sideways.:)

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it didn't. You cannot carbon-date diamonds and coal. I've already explained this to you. I also explained how subterranean decays of uranium-thorium isotope series can produce quantities of carbon-14, which is reflected on local coal or diamond deposits.

Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out in simpler English for you?

Denial of a Young Earth ... and excuses to continue believing in the 'long ages' required to give any credibility to M2M Evolution.

Sarky

You clearly don't know anything about carbon dating, J C. Although you proved that yourself some time ago. You're making yourself look stupid again. Just admit you don't know what you're on about.