Avoid alcohol and sugar if you do not want Cancer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

I have not dismissed Entire branches of Science. Take for example Paleontology. I accept most of it. I just do not accept their dating of Rock layers, due to the wealth of evidence to the contrary.

---

Where have you found this "wealth of evidence"?

Let me guess.

When I did a search on "radiometric dating errors", quite a few sites popped up.

Some of them dismissed the notion that there are significant errors in dating. They said things like:
There are three reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate:

1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced by chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.

2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods.

3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."
-Prof. Michael Benton, (Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, author of 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology.)

On the other hand, some of them maintained that rocks could not be accurately dated.

Guess what! They were all Creationist sites. They tended to say nonsensical things like:
The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record.

Is anyone surprised that these sites are the only source of this "wealth of evidence"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

So you're suggesting that dinosaurs roamed the world, sometime about 6 or 7 thousand years ago when Adam and his genetically manipulated clone Eve were roaming about in Messipotamia. Sorry I have never read anywhere in Genesis the part where Adam named any of the giant lizards.

I guess, you'll be getting you're 27 virgins when you get to heaven too.

---

I did say that I would not discuss this, but am not expecting to get even one virgin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Where have you found this "wealth of evidence"?

Let me guess.

When I did a search on "radiometric dating errors", quite a few sites popped up.

Some of them dismissed the notion that there are significant errors in dating. They said things like:
There are three reasons why radiometric data is known to be accurate:

1. It depends upon radioactive decay, which is known to be extremely stable, not influenced by chemical processes, and which can be measured quite accurately. Thus the physical principle of the method is well established.

2. The dates obtained by radiometric dating are verified by independent methods, including dendrochronology (tree rings), varve chronology (sediment layers), ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms (cave formations), fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating. The multiple checks verify that the rate of isotope decay does not change over time, and it verifies the accuracies of the methods.

3. The dates obtained by different radiometric isotope pairs cross-check each other.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."
-Prof. Michael Benton, (Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, author of 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology.)

On the other hand, some of them maintained that rocks could not be accurately dated.

Guess what! They were all Creationist sites.

Is anyone surprised that these sites are the only source of this "wealth of evidence"?

---

I said that I would not discuss this because I think Inc would not want me to discuss this.

I refer you to the previous discussion on the Soapbox-- If you can find it in the archives-- i cannot. But I am unwilling to upset Inc by answering you, though I would like to. I do not want to ever be banned from this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

I said that I would not discuss this because I think Inc would not want me to discuss this.

I refer you to the previous discussion on the Soapbox-- If you can find it in the archives-- i cannot. But I am unwilling to upset Inc by answering you, though I would like to. I do not want to ever be banned from this site.

---

If you are going to make the claim that there is a wealth of evidence showing that dating doesn't work, what are we supposed to do?

Should we just allow you to get away with such unscientific nonsense or should we correct your error and risk incurring the wrath of Inc?

EDIT: On the other hand, I don't see why a discussion about a legitimate technique used by scientists should upset anyone. I assume you can respond while confining yourself to actual evidence.

I saw a really good comment about this kind of argument the other day - Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon, it doesn't matter what the outcome is you know that they are going to **** on the board and strut around like they have won anyway.

Cheers,

TimJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

I did say that I would not discuss this, but am not expecting to get even one virgin.

---

No but it is a myth of another the religions of the one true mythical being that trace their origins through the sons of Abraham and the stories of the Torah/Bible/Tawrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

No but it is a myth of another the religions of the one true mythical being that trace their origins through the sons of Abraham and the stories of the Torah/Bible/Tawrat.

---

This is going in the wrong direction :angel:........and this thread cannot be moved to The Cantina because grog can cause cancer :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

I have not dismissed Entire branches of Science. Take for example Paleontology. I accept most of it. I just do not accept their dating of Rock layers, due to the wealth of evidence to the contrary. For example I accept that Tyrannosaurus rex roamed the earth sometime ago. The Fossils show that. The thing I disagree with is not his existence, but the time line.

---

The same processes, the methods of thinking and enquiry based on evidence which are encompassed in the the branch of science known as biology and by extension the conclusion you want everybody to heed (alcohol and sugar are bad for you, science proves it) are the same processes, methods of thinking etc. which are encompassed in the branch of science known as geology and by extension the conclusion the earth is a bit older than just a few thousand years.

On one hand you trumpet the outcomes of that process and want to hold it up to the world as verification for what you want to say but on the other hand you want to ignore the outcomes of that exact same process when it is inconvenient to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

...It is known science, but most chose to deliberately remain in ignorance.

---

With respect to ignorance, science and choice you might want to take note of your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnF

I agree white sugar is bad, but that was not the subject of this thread, so that I did not respond to previous posts on Sugar. And yes I have eased on sugar-- until late 1990s I drank huge amounts of soft drink, but have cut most of it out. So I agree, cut out sugar.

---

John, I thought sugar was also the subject of this thread as the title is "Avoid Alcohol and sugar if you do not want Cancer"??????:confused:

those are the alco-pops that the kiddies like. let them continue and we can collect their pensions when they shift off this mortal coil a bit quicker