Carbon dating falacy
It cannot be dated back before the Indus Valley civilization.
“Ultimately, a lot of the carbon dioxide that we’re pumping into the atmosphere is going to end up in the ocean.One idea holds that it was building up in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, where extensive sea ice on the surface of the ocean initially prevented the exchange of gasses into the atmosphere, Martin said.The other possibility is that the same process occurred in the Northern Hemisphere with ice sheets in the North Pacific Ocean, she said.You are allowed to change one letter at a time, but each change must produce a real word. "I don’t believe you’ve found a missing link between APE and MAN. Along the way, I explained why creationism has failed to win support in the scientific community.Here’s a doublet that suits a post on evolution: Change APE to MAN. APE APT OPT OAT MAT MAN Now imagine that having solved the APE-to-MAN puzzle, you tell a friend about your triumph. For one thing, creationists often base their arguments on supposed gaps in evolution, such as "missing links" in the fossil record.Anyone who has tried to debate a creationist has invariably encountered their liberal use of the word, “assumption.” This is one of their trump-card, catch-all arguments that they use to handily “defeat” any evidence that opposes their position.
For example, if you present them with the fact that coral reefs grow much too slowly to have formed in the past 4,500 years (their calculated time since the supposed world-wide flood), they will say, “well, you’re that layers only form annually.” Most infamously, when faced with the realization that radiometric dating completely obliterates the notion of a young earth, they choose to ignore that evidence because scientists are, “ a constant rate of decay/the amount of material in the original rock.” These blind dismissals of evidence are often accompanied by a rhetorical, “were you there?
It turns out it ended up in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean near Antarctica.
The findings have implications for modern-day global warming, said Ellen Martin, a UF geological sciences professor and an author of the paper, which is published in this week’s journal Nature Geoscience.
Little did I know that one day one of his favorite puzzles–the doublet–would become useful to me in thinking about evolution. It is based on either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what evolution is all about. The attack concerns an interview I gave recently to an Australian radio talk show.
The challenge of a doublet is to turn one word into another. "No, I think maybe you didn’t hear how the puzzle works–" "I mean, what comes in between? The Aussies called me up to talk about President Bush’s endorsement of discussing Intelligent Design in schools.
My brother Ben is now a respectable consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary, but when he was a kid, he was a puzzle freak, pure and simple. It’s just a completely separate word on its own." "But then there’s OPT–" "OPT? That’s a lot like MAN." "Sure," your friend says, rolling his eyes. " Is he really not getting it, you might ask yourself, or is he just pretending not to understand what I’m saying?