On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:03:26 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On 29/03/2022 12:04 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > Wonders will never cease! There was a guy who would be roundly
> > > criticised by the "scientists" around for pointing out that good old
> > > coal contained human fossils. The "rational" explanation in the text
> > > from the below link sounds lame.
> > >
> > > https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/07/guadeloupe-woman.html?fbclid=IwAR
> > > 1xWsp1rNLb9CxVn9Kkgnze53D3Hg_5uZtw2oRKnUOH7Dpo-d-6RKmAheg
> > >
> > > I suppose they must be destroying such evidence these days. Fortunately
> > > in the 19th century the scientific mood was strong, for science was not
> > > hijacked by the unspeakables as is the case now.
> > >
> > > Thank goodness for Facebook for sending me such info, that I thought I
> > > should share with my foes.
> > >
> > https://www.charlestonmuseum.org/news-events/storeroom-stories-dr-felix-lhermi
> nier-and-the-fossil-of-guadelou/
> >
> > https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-mioce
> ne-homo-sapiens/
> >
> > https://headbutterofthegods.com/2012/04/26/creationist-drivel-whats-the-date/
> At least I learned a new word from it: 'beachrock'.
> Beachrocks are stone-like formations that may form in intertidal zones
> in hot climates.
> They are concretions that may contain all kinds of things
> that happen to be on the beach.
>
> Jan

On the other hand, beachrock could be billions of years old.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 00:26:53 UTC+11, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 30/03/22 23:36, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 8:11:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
> > wrote:
> >> On 30/03/22 22:37, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:03:26 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder
> >>>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> At least I learned a new word from it: 'beachrock'.
> >>>>> Beachrocks are stone-like formations that may form in
> >>>>> intertidal zones in hot climates. They are concretions that
> >>>>> may contain all kinds of things that happen to be on the
> >>>>> beach.
> >>>> Point is when did that happen. It can be easily see if that
> >>>> happened over 50000 years ago, or not, with carbon14 dating.
> >>> Probably. But why bother? It is just another skeleton, without
> >>> any particular interest about it, embedded in recent beachrock.
> >>> If crazy creationists want to know, let them pay for doing it,
> >>
> >> The catch is that creationists don't believe in carbon dating,
> >> because it is well known that carbon dating can give results that
> >> contradict (their interpretation of) the Bible. That leaves them
> >> with no method for finding out the age of the skeleton.
> >
> > You really need to stop imagining that there is a single lump of
> > pseudoscientists known as "creationists" who all begin with the same
> > set of assumptions and tenets.
> >
> > If any "young-earth creationists" remain, they are small in number
> > and are not the sort of person who would engage in scientific
> > argument.
> This topic was introduced by Arindam, who is probably not a young-earth
> creationist, and who does engage in scientific argument.
>
> Anyway, those primitive religionists might be small in number, but they
> are strong in terms of political influence. If they are so
> insignificant, how did they manage to control the biology textbooks in a
> large number of schools? Our own Prime Minister is probably not a
> young-earth creationist (he hasn't said), but is anti-science, and he
> seems to believe that global warming can be ignored because the Rapture
> is coming soon. He too cannot produce a scientific basis for his
> beliefs, because he rejects science.

I don't think he rejects science, simply because he belongs to a fundamentalist Christian sect.
Yes he may have his own strange beliefs, which are relatively harmless as compared to atheism and the relativity/entropy/quantum-bunkum so uplifting for them.
Here you all believe in e=mcc=hv, which is pure nonsense.
You all reject science, for you ignore my new discoveries in physics that show the universe in a totally different light, in tune with observation.
Don't pretend you are anything scientific, Moylan. You are far more unscientific than our Honourable PM for you have turned physics into a religion with Einstein as God Almighty.

> There are more of these idiots around than you might imagine; and they vote.

How arrogant.

> >> It now occurs to me that creationists can't prove anything,
> >> because they have no science of their own. They can only object to
> >> what other people have proved.
> >
> > Just like atheists. It is exactly as impossible to prove the
> > nonexistence of divine entities as it is to prove their existence.

Divine entities do not need to be proven.
They interact at Their will, causing Grace, to whoever They find worthy.

> An interesting parallel, but I don't think it's valid. Atheists don't
> actually say that gods cannot exist. Instead, they say that, on the
> available evidence, the probability of one or more gods existing is so
> vanishingly small that it might as well be ignored. That's not an
> anti-science position.

It is a typically stupid position.
The Divine is spiritual, and beyond the scope of scientific measurement.
To implicitly hold they are, is dishonest.
The atheists are better off holding that at a personal level they could not find any trace of anything spiritual.
That would make sense to theists, and gain their pity, as opposed to contempt.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> --
> Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 31/03/2022 6:33 a.m., Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/03/2022 4:42 pm, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 31/03/22 02:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-30 13:26:44 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>>> On 30/03/22 23:36, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> Just like atheists. It is exactly as impossible to prove the
>>>>> nonexistence of divine entities as it is to prove their
>>>>> existence.
>>>>
>>>> An interesting parallel, but I don't think it's valid. Atheists
>>>> don't actually say that gods cannot exist.
>>>
>>> Richard Dawkins said that on a scale from 1 (or 0, I don't remember)
>>>  for God definitely exists, to 7 for God definitely does not exist,
>>> he rates himself as a 6. I don't kow of any atheist (though probably
>>>  there are some) who would claim certainty that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>> Instead, they say that, on the available evidence, the probability
>>>>  of one or more gods existing is so vanishingly small that it might
>>>>  as well be ignored. That's not an anti-science position.
>>
>> I'd like to take issue with that "exactly as impossible". That's based
>> on the idea that if a scenario has two possible outcomes, then those
>> outcomes are equally possible.
>>
>> For example: will the sun explode tomorrow? There are two possibilities.
>> Either it will, or it won't, so we can assign a 0.5 probability to the
>> two cases. Therefore, there is a 50% probability that the sun will
>> explode tomorrow.
>>
>> In reality, we have to take the a priori probabilities into account.
>> That means the information we already have available to us. We know a
>> lot about solar evolution, and that changes the probabilities.
>>
>> The same argument applies to the existence of gods. The naive argument
>> says that, since we have no a priori knowledge, there is a 50%
>> probability that gods exist. But it doesn't work like that. We have to
>> take into account the information already available to us.
>>
>> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand it, is
>> the willingness to believe something that most of the evidence says is
>> false.
>
> "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - attr Mark Twain.
>
> But no intelligent Christian would agree. Faith is, as I understand it,
> the willingness to believe something for which there is evidence but no
> proof.
>
> I *know* that the square root of 2 is irrational because it has been
> proved. (I even understand the proof.)
>
> I have a vast amount of empirical (experiential) evidence that my desk
> chair will support me.
>
> I can therefore have faith that my chair will continue to support me
> without collapsing, but I don't *know* it because I have no proof. The
> depth of my faith is demonstrated by the fact that I continue to sit in
> the chair. Do you have faith in your chair, sir? I think you do, sir.
>
> People who believe in God tend to do so because they have experienced
> what they interpret as His work in their lives - empirical evidence that
> cannot be replicated in the laboratory, just like almost all empirical
> evidence cannot.
>
>> Since there is not much evidence that gods exist, that
>> strengthens our faith. You can win any argument with that sort of
>> reasoning.
>
> If you include empirical evidence, there's loads of evidence for God.
> Any Christian will be able to look back on countless moments in their
> lives when they have known the presence of God. It is those experiences
> that constitute the evidence that strengthens our faith.
>
> If you exclude empirical evidence, there is not much evidence... of
> anything at all.
>
> If you are prepared to reject people's experience of God and then claim
> there is not much evidence of God, why not also reject people's
> experience of physics and claim there is not much evidence of physics?

There is a difference here. The evidence for physics is public, and in
principle anyone can examine it and decide whether it is convincing.
The experiences of God that you refer to are private, hence "empirical"
only to the person experiencing them. I would not "reject" them
(whatever that might mean), but I guess I would say that someone else's
private experience is not, for me, a good reason to believe what they
say about God. Particularly when different people come to very different
conclusions about God on the basis of their experiences. And the fact
that such experiences are vouchsafed only to a fraction of humanity
raises other questions about the nature of the God for which they might
constitute evidence.

> I don't mean to bang on about this, Peter, and I promise I won't keep
> banging on, but I am continually amazed by some of the rubbish people
> think Christians believe and I wanted to wave a small flag to say "we're
> really truly not as daft as you like to make out".
>

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 09:49:41 UTC+11, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 6:33 a.m., Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 30/03/2022 4:42 pm, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 31/03/22 02:01, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>> On 2022-03-30 13:26:44 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> >>>> On 30/03/22 23:36, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Just like atheists. It is exactly as impossible to prove the
> >>>>> nonexistence of divine entities as it is to prove their
> >>>>> existence.
> >>>>
> >>>> An interesting parallel, but I don't think it's valid. Atheists
> >>>> don't actually say that gods cannot exist.
> >>>
> >>> Richard Dawkins said that on a scale from 1 (or 0, I don't remember)
> >>> for God definitely exists, to 7 for God definitely does not exist,
> >>> he rates himself as a 6. I don't kow of any atheist (though probably
> >>> there are some) who would claim certainty that God does not exist.
> >>>
> >>>> Instead, they say that, on the available evidence, the probability
> >>>> of one or more gods existing is so vanishingly small that it might
> >>>> as well be ignored. That's not an anti-science position.
> >>
> >> I'd like to take issue with that "exactly as impossible". That's based
> >> on the idea that if a scenario has two possible outcomes, then those
> >> outcomes are equally possible.
> >>
> >> For example: will the sun explode tomorrow? There are two possibilities.
> >> Either it will, or it won't, so we can assign a 0.5 probability to the
> >> two cases. Therefore, there is a 50% probability that the sun will
> >> explode tomorrow.
> >>
> >> In reality, we have to take the a priori probabilities into account.
> >> That means the information we already have available to us. We know a
> >> lot about solar evolution, and that changes the probabilities.
> >>
> >> The same argument applies to the existence of gods. The naive argument
> >> says that, since we have no a priori knowledge, there is a 50%
> >> probability that gods exist. But it doesn't work like that. We have to
> >> take into account the information already available to us.
> >>
> >> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand it, is
> >> the willingness to believe something that most of the evidence says is
> >> false.
> >
> > "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - attr Mark Twain.
> >
> > But no intelligent Christian would agree. Faith is, as I understand it,
> > the willingness to believe something for which there is evidence but no
> > proof.
> >
> > I *know* that the square root of 2 is irrational because it has been
> > proved. (I even understand the proof.)
> >
> > I have a vast amount of empirical (experiential) evidence that my desk
> > chair will support me.
> >
> > I can therefore have faith that my chair will continue to support me
> > without collapsing, but I don't *know* it because I have no proof. The
> > depth of my faith is demonstrated by the fact that I continue to sit in
> > the chair. Do you have faith in your chair, sir? I think you do, sir.
> >
> > People who believe in God tend to do so because they have experienced
> > what they interpret as His work in their lives - empirical evidence that
> > cannot be replicated in the laboratory, just like almost all empirical
> > evidence cannot.
> >
> >> Since there is not much evidence that gods exist, that
> >> strengthens our faith. You can win any argument with that sort of
> >> reasoning.
> >
> > If you include empirical evidence, there's loads of evidence for God.
> > Any Christian will be able to look back on countless moments in their
> > lives when they have known the presence of God. It is those experiences
> > that constitute the evidence that strengthens our faith.
> >
> > If you exclude empirical evidence, there is not much evidence... of
> > anything at all.
> >
> > If you are prepared to reject people's experience of God and then claim
> > there is not much evidence of God, why not also reject people's
> > experience of physics and claim there is not much evidence of physics?
> There is a difference here. The evidence for physics is public, and in
> principle anyone can examine it and decide whether it is convincing.

That is the 19th century conception of physics which I heartily endorse and practise.
However modern physics has become the religion of relativity with Einstein as God.
If you are not a believer, you have no place in it.
It is far more tyrannical than any religion ever was. For this religion of relativity is universal, unlike religious sects where if you don't like one, you can join some other.
If you don't like the religion of physics = relativity, chanting e=mcc as the mantra of faith, you cannot be accepted as a physicist; you are an outcast to be persecuted.

> The experiences of God that you refer to are private, hence "empirical"
> only to the person experiencing them. I would not "reject" them
> (whatever that might mean), but I guess I would say that someone else's
> private experience is not, for me, a good reason to believe what they
> say about God. Particularly when different people come to very different
> conclusions about God on the basis of their experiences. And the fact
> that such experiences are vouchsafed only to a fraction of humanity
> raises other questions about the nature of the God for which they might
> constitute evidence.

All experiences are particular to the individual, and have the notion of magic by spiritual powers beyond the scope of measurement.
Those experiences can not be verified scientifically.
One can ignore, or be interested, as per the integrity and intellect of the person concerned. Can he or she, see, beyond the veil of ignorance?

God is perceived in different ways by different cultures.
The experiences of the individual will undoubtedly be influenced by the way God is perceived in his or her culture.
The common aspect of magic, that which causes instant illumination, causing change, remains.

> > I don't mean to bang on about this, Peter, and I promise I won't keep
> > banging on, but I am continually amazed by some of the rubbish people
> > think Christians believe and I wanted to wave a small flag to say "we're
> > really truly not as daft as you like to make out".

What do Christians believe, then?
> >

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 09:31:03 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 00:26:53 UTC+11, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 30/03/22 23:36, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 8:11:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 30/03/22 22:37, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:03:26 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>> At least I learned a new word from it: 'beachrock'.
> > >>>>> Beachrocks are stone-like formations that may form in
> > >>>>> intertidal zones in hot climates. They are concretions that
> > >>>>> may contain all kinds of things that happen to be on the
> > >>>>> beach.
> > >>>> Point is when did that happen. It can be easily see if that
> > >>>> happened over 50000 years ago, or not, with carbon14 dating.
> > >>> Probably. But why bother? It is just another skeleton, without
> > >>> any particular interest about it, embedded in recent beachrock.
> > >>> If crazy creationists want to know, let them pay for doing it,
> > >>
> > >> The catch is that creationists don't believe in carbon dating,
> > >> because it is well known that carbon dating can give results that
> > >> contradict (their interpretation of) the Bible. That leaves them
> > >> with no method for finding out the age of the skeleton.
> > >
> > > You really need to stop imagining that there is a single lump of
> > > pseudoscientists known as "creationists" who all begin with the same
> > > set of assumptions and tenets.
> > >
> > > If any "young-earth creationists" remain, they are small in number
> > > and are not the sort of person who would engage in scientific
> > > argument.
> > This topic was introduced by Arindam, who is probably not a young-earth
> > creationist, and who does engage in scientific argument.
> >
> > Anyway, those primitive religionists might be small in number, but they
> > are strong in terms of political influence. If they are so
> > insignificant, how did they manage to control the biology textbooks in a
> > large number of schools? Our own Prime Minister is probably not a
> > young-earth creationist (he hasn't said), but is anti-science, and he
> > seems to believe that global warming can be ignored because the Rapture
> > is coming soon. He too cannot produce a scientific basis for his
> > beliefs, because he rejects science.
> I don't think he rejects science, simply because he belongs to a fundamentalist Christian sect.
> Yes he may have his own strange beliefs, which are relatively harmless as compared to atheism and the relativity/entropy/quantum-bunkum so uplifting for them.
> Here you all believe in e=mcc=hv, which is pure nonsense.
> You all reject science, for you ignore my new discoveries in physics that show the universe in a totally different light, in tune with observation.
> Don't pretend you are anything scientific, Moylan. You are far more unscientific than our Honourable PM for you have turned physics into a religion with Einstein as God Almighty.
> > There are more of these idiots around than you might imagine; and they vote.
> How arrogant.
> > >> It now occurs to me that creationists can't prove anything,
> > >> because they have no science of their own. They can only object to
> > >> what other people have proved.
> > >
> > > Just like atheists. It is exactly as impossible to prove the
> > > nonexistence of divine entities as it is to prove their existence.
> Divine entities do not need to be proven.
> They interact at Their will, causing Grace, to whoever They find worthy.
> > An interesting parallel, but I don't think it's valid. Atheists don't
> > actually say that gods cannot exist. Instead, they say that, on the
> > available evidence, the probability of one or more gods existing is so
> > vanishingly small that it might as well be ignored. That's not an
> > anti-science position.
> It is a typically stupid position.
> The Divine is spiritual, and beyond the scope of scientific measurement.
> To implicitly hold they are, is dishonest.
> The atheists are better off holding that at a personal level they could not find any trace of anything spiritual.
> That would make sense to theists, and gain their pity, as opposed to contempt.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> > --
> > Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

About the need for prayer:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/ELijaaWFLU4/m/cnu8_iBRAgAJ

On 30/03/2022 11:49 pm, Ross Clark wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 6:33 a.m., Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> If you include empirical evidence, there's loads of evidence for God.
>> Any Christian will be able to look back on countless moments in their
>> lives when they have known the presence of God. It is those
>> experiences that constitute the evidence that strengthens our faith.
>>
>> If you exclude empirical evidence, there is not much evidence... of
>> anything at all.
>>
>> If you are prepared to reject people's experience of God and then
>> claim there is not much evidence of God, why not also reject people's
>> experience of physics and claim there is not much evidence of physics?
>
> There is a difference here. The evidence for physics is public, and in
> principle anyone can examine it and decide whether it is convincing.

Yes, I agree entirely. It's all still experiential, though, even if it's
written down.

> The experiences of God that you refer to are private, hence "empirical"
> only to the person experiencing them. I would not "reject" them
> (whatever that might mean), but I guess I would say that someone else's
> private experience is not, for me, a good reason to believe what they
> say about God.

True, although you can of course ask yourself whether your experience of
that person leads you to believe that they are trustworthy.

But whether or not they can be trusted, while their first-hand
experience will be very powerful in forming their opinion, it's hard to
see how it could be anywhere near as powerful when related second-hand.
So I'm still agreeing with you...

> Particularly when different people come to very different
> conclusions about God on the basis of their experiences. And the fact
> that such experiences are vouchsafed only to a fraction of humanity
> raises other questions about the nature of the God for which they might
> constitute evidence.

It does indeed, but here I suspect my answers to those questions differ
to yours. Nevertheless, I'm determined to keep my promise not to bang
on about it, so I'm going to leave it there.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
[-]
> In which case the 28 million years stated was a bit of misinformation. I
> suppose if dinosaur bones could be found in a similar sort of concretion,
> then this mistake is understandable. On the other hand, it is reported in
> certain websites that dinosaur tissue by carbon dating shows a much
> younger age, around 25000 years. Those researchers who have pointed it out
> have lost their jobs.
> The status quoists claim the samples could be contaminated.
[-]
That is another piece of desinformation
that you have picked up from some creationist site.

What creationists don't want to know about is 'background'.
At the limits of sensitivity there are always 'clicks'
that were not caused by C14 atoms from the sample.
It is just random noise.
So everything you try will date to about 50 000 years,
plus or minus a large margin.
(or to whatever their limit of sensitivity is)

So creationists will claim with loud indignation
that benighted scientists at reputable labs
have refused to carbon date their dinosaur bones.
(even when they offer to pay for all the costs involved)

The reputable scientists involved do have good reasons:
they know that their findings will be abused,
and they don't want their names mentioned in some creationist scam,

Jan

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/03/22 22:37, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 19:03:26 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> At least I learned a new word from it: 'beachrock'. Beachrocks
> >>> are stone-like formations that may form in intertidal zones in
> >>> hot climates. They are concretions that may contain all kinds of
> >>> things that happen to be on the beach.
> >>
> >> Point is when did that happen. It can be easily see if that
> >> happened over 50000 years ago, or not, with carbon14 dating.
> >
> > Probably. But why bother? It is just another skeleton, without any
> > particular interest about it, embedded in recent beachrock. If crazy
> > creationists want to know, let them pay for doing it,
>
> The catch is that creationists don't believe in carbon dating, because
> it is well known that carbon dating can give results that contradict
> (their interpretation of) the Bible. That leaves them with no method for
> finding out the age of the skeleton.
>
> It now occurs to me that creationists can't prove anything, because they
> have no science of their own. They can only object to what other people
> have proved.

They have what is known as the 'bait and switch scam'.
Pretend that something called ID-Science exists,
then use that 'science' as a pretence (teach the controversy)
for teaching good old creationism in schools.

It fell through in Kitzmiller vs Dover.
One of the findings was that they had simply used a word processor
on a creationist textbook to replace all occurrences of 'creator'
by 'designer'.
Judge John Jones III didn't fall for it.

The case went so bad for the creationist side
that they couldn't find a ground
for going on to the supreme court, as the intention had been,

Jan

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:07:31 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [-]
> > In which case the 28 million years stated was a bit of misinformation. I
> > suppose if dinosaur bones could be found in a similar sort of concretion,
> > then this mistake is understandable. On the other hand, it is reported in
> > certain websites that dinosaur tissue by carbon dating shows a much
> > younger age, around 25000 years. Those researchers who have pointed it out
> > have lost their jobs.
> > The status quoists claim the samples could be contaminated.
> [-]
> That is another piece of desinformation
> that you have picked up from some creationist site.

This is a creationist site, which does not mention contamination:
https://creation.com/dinosaur-bones-just-how-old-are-they-really
This one says that guys mistook dinosaur bones for bison bones, for 20 years!
Quoting from above:
***
In summary, therefore:

Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.
Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.
Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.
The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.
>
> What creationists don't want to know about is 'background'.
> At the limits of sensitivity there are always 'clicks'
> that were not caused by C14 atoms from the sample.
> It is just random noise.
> So everything you try will date to about 50 000 years,
> plus or minus a large margin.
> (or to whatever their limit of sensitivity is)

But creationists don't bother about 50000 years.
They are bothered about 6000 years or so, as per Bible.
***
> So creationists will claim with loud indignation
> that benighted scientists at reputable labs
> have refused to carbon date their dinosaur bones.
> (even when they offer to pay for all the costs involved)

No one is talking of carbon dating dinosaur bones.
https://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/how-okd-is-youngist-dinosaur-fossil/#11
From above:

***
How Do They Determine The Age Of Dinosaur Fossils?
A fossil’s age can be determined by using relative dating or absolute dating. A fossil is compared to a similar rock or fossil, the age of which is known, in relative dating. By contrast, absolute dating is used to determine the exact age of fossils using radiometric dating.

How Do We Know Dinosaurs Are 65 Million Years Old?
A dinosaur fossil can be determined in two ways. A dinosaur fossil’s relative geologic time determines whether it is older or younger than its younger counterpart. A geologists then measures the proportion of parent and daughter atoms present in ash crystals to determine their age.
***

So we have the terms: radiometric dating, proportion of parent and daughter atoms present in ash crystals.
Uranium isotopes are involved, as they have a great half-life.
Point is, is there uranium in the fossil or around?
If not within the fossil then the tests are invalid.
Just guesswork, based upon some reference on relative dating. But even for relative dating, they must be sure of at least one fossil's absolute dating.

>
> The reputable scientists involved do have good reasons:
> they know that their findings will be abused,
> and they don't want their names mentioned in some creationist scam,

Oh dear, they sound like modern physicists!

>
> Jan

On 3/30/2022 4:08 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand
>>> it, is the willingness to believe something that most of the
>>> evidence says is false.

>> No, regarding which there is no evidence.

> No evidence is needed,

From Joe Fineman's sigspace:

Faith is the belief which needs no proof,
for it is backed by the threat of beatings.

CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/30/2022 4:08 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >>> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand
> >>> it, is the willingness to believe something that most of the
> >>> evidence says is false.
>
> >> No, regarding which there is no evidence.
>
> > No evidence is needed,
>
> From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
>
> Faith is the belief which needs no proof,
> for it is backed by the threat of beatings.

Yes, and by far worse.
You could be hanged or burnt at the stake
for the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched.
You still can, in some parts of the world. [1]

So I can't believe in those theories that claim
that religion is somehow innate in Homo sapiens,
or even in the existence of a 'religion gene'.

We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it
until we have had experience with societies
that have had freedom from religion for hundreds of years,

Jan

[1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy,
came to my attention.
Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:47:39 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 30/03/22 13:54, Ross Clark wrote:
>> On 29/03/2022 12:04 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>
>>> Wonders will never cease!
>>> There was a guy who would be roundly criticised by the "scientists"
>>> around for pointing out that good old coal contained human fossils.
>>> The "rational" explanation in the text from the below link sounds lame.
>>>
>>> https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/07/guadeloupe-woman.html?fbclid=IwAR1xWsp1rNLb9CxVn9Kkgnze53D3Hg_5uZtw2oRKnUOH7Dpo-d-6RKmAheg
>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose they must be destroying such evidence these days.
>>> Fortunately in the 19th century the scientific mood was strong, for
>>> science was not hijacked by the unspeakables as is the case now.
>>>
>>> Thank goodness for Facebook for sending me such info, that I thought I
>>> should share with my foes.
>>>
>> https://www.charlestonmuseum.org/news-events/storeroom-stories-dr-felix-lherminier-and-the-fossil-of-guadelou/
>>
>>
>> https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-miocene-homo-sapiens/
>>
>>
>> https://headbutterofthegods.com/2012/04/26/creationist-drivel-whats-the-date/
>
>Let me see whether I have this straight.
>
>Creationists are claiming that
>(a) the world is at most 10,000 years old; and
>(b) there were modern humans in Guadeloupe 28 million years ago.
>
>Yeah, that makes sense.

You may be underestimating The Creator.

The world was created 10,000 years ago.

However, it was created with a built-in history of evolution so that
humans could learn the nature of themselves and other living entities.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:47:39 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 30/03/22 13:54, Ross Clark wrote:
> >> On 29/03/2022 12:04 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Wonders will never cease!
> >>> There was a guy who would be roundly criticised by the "scientists"
> >>> around for pointing out that good old coal contained human fossils.
> >>> The "rational" explanation in the text from the below link sounds lame.
> >>>
> >>> https://mysteriesrunsolved.com/2020/07/guadeloupe-woman.html?fbclid=IwAR1x
Wsp1rNLb9CxVn9Kkgnze53D3Hg_5uZtw2oRKnUOH7Dpo-d-6RKmAheg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I suppose they must be destroying such evidence these days.
> >>> Fortunately in the 19th century the scientific mood was strong, for
> >>> science was not hijacked by the unspeakables as is the case now.
> >>>
> >>> Thank goodness for Facebook for sending me such info, that I thought I
> >>> should share with my foes.
> >>>
> >> https://www.charlestonmuseum.org/news-events/storeroom-stories-dr-felix-lhe
rminier-and-the-fossil-of-guadelou/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-mi
ocene-homo-sapiens/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://headbutterofthegods.com/2012/04/26/creationist-drivel-whats-the-dat
e/
> >
> >Let me see whether I have this straight.
> >
> >Creationists are claiming that
> >(a) the world is at most 10,000 years old; and
> >(b) there were modern humans in Guadeloupe 28 million years ago.
> >
> >Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> You may be underestimating The Creator.
>
> The world was created 10,000 years ago.
>
> However, it was created with a built-in history of evolution so that
> humans could learn the nature of themselves and other living entities.

You will no doubt have guessed that this is not an original idea.
It is called 'Omphalism', and mocked as 'last thursday-ism'. [1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis>

It was invented by an Englishman named Gosse,
already before Darwin published The Origins. (1857)
Gosse was convinced he had found THE answer
to reconcile science and theology.
To his dismay his great idea was received
with nothing but contempt and hostility.

Scientist were contemptuous, no need of this,
and it is by definition unfalsifiable, so not science.

Theologians were very hostile to the idea,
for it makes their god into the greatest liar ever.
(stuffing his creation with false clues to a past that never existed
for no other purpose than to mislead humans who might use their brains)

It is called 'Omphalism' because it harks back
to that greatest of theological questions:
Did Adam have a navel?

Jan

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 01:31:36 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/30/2022 4:08 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> > >>> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand
> > >>> it, is the willingness to believe something that most of the
> > >>> evidence says is false.
> >
> > >> No, regarding which there is no evidence.
> >
> > > No evidence is needed,
> >
> > From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
> >
> > Faith is the belief which needs no proof,
> > for it is backed by the threat of beatings.
> Yes, and by far worse.
> You could be hanged or burnt at the stake
> for the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched.
> You still can, in some parts of the world. [1]
>
> So I can't believe in those theories that claim
> that religion is somehow innate in Homo sapiens,
> or even in the existence of a 'religion gene'.
>
> We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it
> until we have had experience with societies
> that have had freedom from religion for hundreds of years,

The entire East has had freedom from such "religions" for all time.
As had the West until the Romans got the bright idea of enslaving Jews in Rome.
>
> Jan
>
> [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
> hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy,
> came to my attention.
> Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.

On 01/04/22 05:00, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:47:39 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> Let me see whether I have this straight.
>>
>> Creationists are claiming that
>> (a) the world is at most 10,000 years old; and
>> (b) there were modern humans in Guadeloupe 28 million years ago.
>>
>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> You may be underestimating The Creator.
>
> The world was created 10,000 years ago.
>
> However, it was created with a built-in history of evolution so that
> humans could learn the nature of themselves and other living entities.

Going off at a tangent ...

Although I like the writing of Terry Pratchett, his book /Strata/ is not
worth reading.

(It's about building worlds, including the insertion of fake
archaeological evidence.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 01/04/22 01:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
>>
>> Faith is the belief which needs no proof, for it is backed by the
>> threat of beatings.
>
> Yes, and by far worse. You could be hanged or burnt at the stake for
> the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched. You still can, in some
> parts of the world. [1]
>
> So I can't believe in those theories that claim that religion is
> somehow innate in Homo sapiens, or even in the existence of a
> 'religion gene'.
>
> We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it until we have
> had experience with societies that have had freedom from religion for
> hundreds of years,
>
> Jan
>
> [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
> hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy, came to my
> attention. Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.

In practice, blasphemy laws are for the protection of one particular
religion. Once a country gets to the point of legislating for freedom of
religion, blasphemy laws become unworkable, because different religions
will have different opinions about which statements are blasphemous.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 01/04/22 01:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
> >>
> >> Faith is the belief which needs no proof, for it is backed by the
> >> threat of beatings.
> >
> > Yes, and by far worse. You could be hanged or burnt at the stake for
> > the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched. You still can, in some
> > parts of the world. [1]
> >
> > So I can't believe in those theories that claim that religion is
> > somehow innate in Homo sapiens, or even in the existence of a
> > 'religion gene'.
> >
> > We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it until we have
> > had experience with societies that have had freedom from religion for
> > hundreds of years,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
> > hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy, came to my
> > attention. Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.
>
> In practice, blasphemy laws are for the protection of one particular
> religion. Once a country gets to the point of legislating for freedom of
> religion, blasphemy laws become unworkable, because different religions
> will have different opinions about which statements are blasphemous.

Yes, so the islamists asked for an extension of the blasphemy law,
to cover their ideas of blasphemy too. [1]
Parliament responded by abolishing the blasphemy law altogether.

Jan

FYI, The Netherlands are a special case.
The blasphemy law was quite recent,
as these things go. (1932-2014, in response to marxist atheism)
Moreover, it covered only 'smalende godslastering'.
That means that complainants had to prove that the blasphemer
had not just been blasphemous, but also that he
had done so with the deliberate intent to hurt other people's feelings.
There have been a few cases, but no convictions.

On 01/04/22 20:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/04/22 01:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
>>>>
>>>> Faith is the belief which needs no proof, for it is backed by
>>>> the threat of beatings.
>>>
>>> Yes, and by far worse. You could be hanged or burnt at the stake
>>> for the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched. You still can, in
>>> some parts of the world. [1]
>>>
>>> So I can't believe in those theories that claim that religion is
>>> somehow innate in Homo sapiens, or even in the existence of a
>>> 'religion gene'.
>>>
>>> We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it until we
>>> have had experience with societies that have had freedom from
>>> religion for hundreds of years,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas
>>> Aikenhead, hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of
>>> blasphemy, came to my attention. Scotland abolished its
>>> blasphemy law only last year.
>>
>> In practice, blasphemy laws are for the protection of one
>> particular religion. Once a country gets to the point of
>> legislating for freedom of religion, blasphemy laws become
>> unworkable, because different religions will have different
>> opinions about which statements are blasphemous.
>
> Yes, so the islamists asked for an extension of the blasphemy law,
> to cover their ideas of blasphemy too. [1] Parliament responded by
> abolishing the blasphemy law altogether.

The Wikipedia article on blasphemy in Ireland contains an interesting
quote, apparently from a member of the bar council.

<quote>
When the English Parliament originally enacted blasphemy laws, it was
with a view to appeasing an angry God who was irritated by despicable
literature and who was causing plagues and fires to occur in London.
That was the historical reason for the law.
</quote>

But Ireland already had the problem that accusations of blasphemy were
very much tied up with the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants.
In the end, a referendum removed the blasphemy provisions in the
constitution. Largely, it seems to me, on the grounds that the law was
starting to look silly.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 09:42:09 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 01:31:36 UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/30/2022 4:08 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> The pro-god argument is based on faith. Faith is, as I understand
> > > >>> it, is the willingness to believe something that most of the
> > > >>> evidence says is false.
> > >
> > > >> No, regarding which there is no evidence.
> > >
> > > > No evidence is needed,
> > >
> > > From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
> > >
> > > Faith is the belief which needs no proof,
> > > for it is backed by the threat of beatings.
> > Yes, and by far worse.
> > You could be hanged or burnt at the stake
> > for the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched.
> > You still can, in some parts of the world. [1]
> >
> > So I can't believe in those theories that claim
> > that religion is somehow innate in Homo sapiens,
> > or even in the existence of a 'religion gene'.
> >
> > We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it
> > until we have had experience with societies
> > that have had freedom from religion for hundreds of years,
> The entire East has had freedom from such "religions" for all time.
> As had the West until the Romans got the bright idea of enslaving Jews in Rome.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
> > hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy,
> > came to my attention.
> > Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.

Blasphemy is very much part of life in Western civilisation.
It is blasphemous to say that the religion of relativity is bogus and that Einstein was the greatest bungler in science, who was taken seriously universally.
Then there are many other blasphemies also called conspiracy theories.
They may not be able to burn you at the stake, but they can do whatever they can to make you a non-person.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 8:39:31 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/04/22 01:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> From Joe Fineman's sigspace:
> >>
> >> Faith is the belief which needs no proof, for it is backed by the
> >> threat of beatings.
> >
> > Yes, and by far worse. You could be hanged or burnt at the stake for
> > the crime of blasphemy, or merely lynched. You still can, in some
> > parts of the world. [1]
> >
> > So I can't believe in those theories that claim that religion is
> > somehow innate in Homo sapiens, or even in the existence of a
> > 'religion gene'.
> >
> > We can't know how much nature or nurture there is in it until we have
> > had experience with societies that have had freedom from religion for
> > hundreds of years,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] Don't remember how or where, but the case of Thomas Aikenhead,
> > hanged in Edinburgh in 1697 for the crime of blasphemy, came to my
> > attention. Scotland abolished its blasphemy law only last year.
>
> In practice, blasphemy laws are for the protection of one particular
> religion.

An awful lot of countries embrace one particular religion.

> Once a country gets to the point of legislating for freedom of
> religion,

And how often has that happened?

> blasphemy laws become unworkable, because different religions
> will have different opinions about which statements are blasphemous.