Ancient, ancient languages

[xevolutionist]

Like other fraudulant scientific claims in the past science does find the frauds and deletes the results. It is important that scientists uncover the frauds and clean up sience and not the clowns at AIG or xevolutionists.

Science and evolution still stands on the very sound consistent predicable evidence. Please, also not that this fraudulant work involved only a possible link between homo sapiens and Neanderthals had very little if nothing to do with the research on the evolution of homo sapiens. Very few if no major paleontologists consider there to be a direct relationship between homosapiens and Neanderthals, nor does carbon dating have any role in dating the evolutionary ancestors of homo sapiens.

Good to know that it only took 30 years to discover this expert didn't even know how to use his radio carbon dating equipment.

Glad to see the scientific community was right on top of that.

This incident proves my assertion that radiometric dating is not scientific and can not be regarded as reliable until some type of blind testing and checking for reliability and repeatability of results is instituted.

Talk about pigs flying. Of course carbon dating didn't have any role in dating the evolutionary ancestors of homo sapiens because there aren't any verifiable "evolutionary" ancestors of humans. Regardless of when they are supposed to have existed.

[shunyadragon]

Good to know that it only took 30 years to discover this expert didn't even know how to use his radio carbon dating equipment.

Glad to see the scientific community was right on top of that.

Sarcasm get's you nowhere. It is red herring. the fact is science has historically found the fraud and errors and not theologians, philosophers or xevolutionists.

In those 30 years did any body other than scientists check or verify the research to find the fraud or errors?

This incident proves my assertion that radiometric dating is not scientific and can not be regarded as reliable until some type of blind testing and checking for reliability and repeatability of results is instituted.

Incidents of misuse in anything has never represented any kind of falsification of methods whether scientific, legal, philisiophical, logical or other wise.

This represents a bizzare and foolish conclusion.

Talk about pigs flying. Of course carbon dating didn't have any role in dating the evolutionary ancestors of homo sapiens because there aren't any verifiable "evolutionary" ancestors of humans. Regardless of when they are supposed to have existed.

Talk about pigs flyinng!!!!!!! Back to basic science, radio carbon dating cannot even cover the known history of homo sapiens dated by other methods, such as radiometric dating using other elements, and strategraphy that do not involve radiometric dating..

You still have not answered the most important question here.

What qualifications do you have that makes you able to interpret and understand this research and qualify you to make the judgement whether evolution is true or false?

Xevolutionist is quite a claim. Were you qualified to understand the science of evolution when you once believed in it?

[xevolutionist]

Sarcasm get's you nowhere. It is red herring. the fact is science has historically found the fraud and errors and not theologians, philosophers or xevolutionists.

In those 30 years did any body other than scientists check or verify the research to find the fraud or errors?



Incidents of misuse in anything has never represented any kind of falsification of methods whether scientific, legal, philisiophical, logical or other wise.

This represents a bizzare and foolish conclusion.



Talk about pigs flyinng!!!!!!! Back to basic science, radio carbon dating cannot even cover the known history of homo sapiens dated by other methods, such as radiometric dating using other elements, and strategraphy that do not involve radiometric dating..

You still have not answered the most important question here.

What qualifications do you have that makes you able to interpret and understand this research and qualify you to make the judgement whether evolution is true or false?

Xevolutionist is quite a claim. Were you qualified to understand the science of evolution when you once believed in it?

Red herring? He was caught red handed!

Bizarre and foolish conclusion? You seem to be saying that since Prof. Protsch got away with scientific fraud for only 30 years it's just an isolated incident with no real implications. How long would it take before you raised an eyebrow? 50 years? 30 years is an entire career for most people!!!

How can we know if any of these labs performing dating have people who know how the equipment functions? Who would know and who checks the accuracy and reliability of their equipment? It wouldn't surprise me if it was all fakery. Otherwise why would they need to know where it was found, and what age the finder believes it to be?

My point is that if it [radiometric dating] were such a rigid scientific discipline, why wasn't his fraud detected much earlier? He was only outed after trying to sell the university's collections, not because his fraud was detected by some scientific oversight committee.

What other body was supposed to check his work? It can't be checked because it's subjective, and not based on science. If radiometric dating were verifiable there wouldn't be such resistance to any testing of the various methods and results obtained when attempting to date any particular object.

My qualifications are an ability to reason and question. Or did I stumble on to the forum where only degreed Darwinists are deemed worthy to have opinions? Or is that the only response you have to devalue my argument? Try and discredit me, not my argument?

Since evolution is really an untestable hypothesis that makes the wildest claim ever accepted without evidence, by some members of the scientific community, and the vast majority of atheist professors whose primary purpose in life is to achieve tenure, it would require some extraordinary evidence to convince me that it's true.

And Prof. Protsch's sure and swift [?] exposure as a fraud in the midst of evolutionary research doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the methods and peer review that we are assured makes this such a scientific process.

[Rushing Jaws]

Denise Schmandt-Besserat's book is available in an abridged edition, as "How Writing Came About" (Univ. of Texas Press 1996)

There is also Jean-Jacques Glassner, "The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer" (2007)