On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:

Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?

Yes

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3

Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not
infallible...

Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather
is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html



1990...

C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate
application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take
relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate
to infer that the whole field is unreliable.

As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some
are useful."

The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.



There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be
self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite
another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some
sort of "alternative."

Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto
public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and
evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the
fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's
pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference
that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their
dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however
is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools.