Texas: Put Creationism In Every Textbook!!!

[Pavlostani]

Yes. Impeach Texas. Legalize evolution. Textbooks are theft. CHARLES DARWIN 1984

If Darwin went into politics he'd probably be a communist. Not because he's part of the ebul librel conspiracy, more because of his enormous facial hair.

[Pandeeria]

Yes. Impeach Texas. Legalize evolution. Textbooks are theft. CHARLES DARWIN 1984

If Darwin went into politics he'd probably be a communist. Not because he's part of the ebul librel conspiracy, more because of his enormous facial hair.

True.

[New Chalcedon]

Can that be done?

Can you sue a state?

It happened here in my home state. Griswold v. Connecticut.

Actually, you need the State's consent to sue it. See Alden v. Maine (1999) in which a five-Justice majority held that States cannot be sued in Federal courts without their consent, per the Eleventh Amendment.

[Opuntia]

Because we are not plants! There you go. All jewish zionist illuminati's doing. Your brain is as washed as YOUR MOM.

But he's saying the part of the bible that supports creationism and says we're all plants is fact. Therefore we have to be plants!

DO I LOOK GREEN TO YOU?! Fucking left-liberal communazi hippie beatniks with bongo drums...

[Tekania]

no , they cant be

all persons are sons of god

The plural of person is people. And now, we get into sexism. I'm sure some are daughters of god too, otherwise, we'd all be breaking that dreaded rule in the bible about homosexuality. Don't even get me started on incest.

The plural of person is either depending on whether you're talking an indeterminate group (people) or a determinate group (persons). Though in general use persons is not used as much anymore except in formal or legal settings.

[Farnhamia]

But he's saying the part of the bible that supports creationism and says we're all plants is fact. Therefore we have to be plants!

DO I LOOK GREEN TO YOU?! Fucking left-liberal communazi hippie beatniks with bongo drums...

Knock it off.

[DesAnges]

So you have no fucking idea what carbon dating does?
Cute.

You're the one with no idea, as you can't even articulate it here. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of stable carbon to unstable radiocarbon in any given sample. The problem is that there's an inherent assumption that the ratio of stable to unstable carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant.

Radiocarbon dating is only useful up until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.

[Opuntia]

Yes. Impeach Texas. Legalize evolution. Textbooks are theft. CHARLES DARWIN 1984

If Darwin went into politics he'd probably be a communist. Not because he's part of the ebul librel conspiracy, more because of his enormous facial hair.

Everyone except Mao and Tito knows a mustache is the most integral part to communism. Even Ho Chi Minh knew that.

[Utceforp]

If Darwin went into politics he'd probably be a communist. Not because he's part of the ebul librel conspiracy, more because of his enormous facial hair.

True.

He started out with just sideburns, but he got to Marxist levels of facial hair eventually.

[Lunalia]

But he's saying the part of the bible that supports creationism and says we're all plants is fact. Therefore we have to be plants!

DO I LOOK GREEN TO YOU?! Fucking left-liberal communazi hippie beatniks with bongo drums...

Don't blame ME, blame the guy who's saying the book that says sperm contains seeds that grow into people is full of facts that are true!

[Farnhamia]

You're the one with no idea, as you can't even articulate it here. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of stable carbon to unstable radiocarbon in any given sample. The problem is that there's an inherent assumption that the ratio of stable to unstable carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant.

Radiocarbon dating is only useful up until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.

And this thread is only useful ... dubiously ... up to the actions of the Texas BoE textbook committee.

[Edlichbury]

So you have no fucking idea what carbon dating does?
Cute.

You're the one with no idea, as you can't even articulate it here. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of stable carbon to unstable radiocarbon in any given sample. The problem is that there's an inherent assumption that the ratio of stable to unstable carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant.

It has for the time period carbon dating is actually used for, or we already know the variation from other tests.

[Dyakovo]

So you have no fucking idea what carbon dating does?
Cute.

You're the one with no idea, as you can't even articulate it here. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of stable carbon to unstable radiocarbon in any given sample. The problem is that there's an inherent assumption that the ratio of stable to unstable carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant.

Atmospheric variation
In the early years of using the technique, it was not assumed that the atmospheric 14 C/12 C ratio had been the same over the preceding few thousand years. To verify the accuracy of the method, several artifacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. However, over the next few years significant discrepancies were found, in particular with the chronology of the early Egyptian dynasties: artifact ages derived from radiocarbon testing were several centuries younger than what were thought to be the true ages. The discrepancy was resolved by the study of tree-rings. Comparison of overlapping series of tree-rings allowed the construction of a continuous sequence of tree-ring data that spanned 8,000 years. Carbon-dating the wood from the tree-rings themselves provided the check needed on the atmospheric 14 C/12 C ratio: with a sample of known date, and a measurement of the value of N (the number of atoms of 14 C remaining in the sample), the carbon-dating equation allows the calculation of N0 (the number of atoms of 14 C in the original sample), and hence the original ratio.[24] Armed with the results of carbon-dating the tree rings it became possible to construct calibration curves designed to correct the errors caused by the variation over time in the 14
C/12 C ratio. These curves are described in more detail below. There are three main reasons for these variations in the historical 14 C/12 C ratio: fluctuations in the rate at which 14 C is created; changes caused by glaciation; and changes caused by human activity.[

[Opuntia]

DO I LOOK GREEN TO YOU?! Fucking left-liberal communazi hippie beatniks with bongo drums...

Knock it off.

Sure thing.

[Furious Grandmothers]

You're the one with no idea, as you can't even articulate it here. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of stable carbon to unstable radiocarbon in any given sample. The problem is that there's an inherent assumption that the ratio of stable to unstable carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant.

Radiocarbon dating is only useful up until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.

Which is why I'm waiting for a reply to:

When have scientists used carbon to date periods of 100 million years ago? I don't think any serious scientist would do something as foolish as waste research money on doing that. Show me the case. Because as far as I know, carbon dating is indeed only accurate up to within the last 50,000 years. Other techniques, though, can certainly date to 100 million years ago. Show me the case.

[Dyakovo]

Radiocarbon dating is only useful up until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.

And this thread is only useful ... dubiously ... up to the actions of the Texas BoE textbook committee.

It's related. The creationists are trying to claim validity based on the assumed inaccuracies of the methods behind carbon dating.

[Pandeeria]

True.

He started out with just sideburns, but he got to Marxist levels of facial hair eventually.

Darwin is Marxing it up!


I know, I should feel bad for that.

[Farnhamia]

And this thread is only useful ... dubiously ... up to the actions of the Texas BoE textbook committee.

It's related. The creationists are trying to claim validity based on the assumed inaccuracies of the methods behind carbon dating.

Not to the topic at hand, it isn't: "Behind closed doors, textbook reviewers appointed by the Texas State Board of Education are pushing to inject creationism into teaching materials that will be adopted statewide in high schools this year, according to new documents obtained by watchdog groups. Records show that the textbook reviewers made ideological objections to material on evolution and climate change in science textbooks from at least seven publishers, including several of the nation's largest publishing houses. Failing to obtain a review panel's top rating can make it harder for publishers to sell their textbooks to school districts, and can even lead the state to reject the books altogether."

[Opuntia]

True.

He started out with just sideburns, but he got to Marxist levels of facial hair eventually.

Marxist levels? That is just scary.

[Christian Union]

The variable would be carbon, or whatever medium was used to date any given object. To assume that the volume of carbon present in the atmosphere 100 million years ago is either A.) the same then as it is now, or B.) can somehow be estimated even though we weren't there, is the faulty assumption. Many "scientists" use such dating methods to "prove" that certain fossil samples are millions of years old, despite the inconsistencies of the dating (one test might say 50,000 years, the other might say 1 million, for example), and despite the obvious problem of making assumptions.

When have scientists used carbon to date periods of 100 million years ago? I don't think any serious scientist would do something as foolish as waste research money on doing that. Show me the case. Because as far as I know, carbon dating is indeed only accurate up to within the last 50,000 years. Other techniques, though, can certainly date to 100 million years ago. Show me the case.

Regardless of the dating method, the inherent flaw is the assumption-making. In the realm of empirical evidence-based science, you cannot measure nor validate what you cannot see, touch, sense physically. So no technique can accurately predict the age of an item whose atmospheric conditions were likely very different than ours. The difference in atmospheric composition would no doubt confound any attempt to determine age based on contemporary inferences.

[Farnhamia]

And we're done. Despite repeated requests to discuss the topic (the Texas Board of Education's schoolbook committee's move to reject books that do not give equal time to creationism), the threadjacks (carbon-14 and, earlier, various Bible topics) continue. Not to mention the spam about being green and about Mr. Darwin's and Herr Marx's facial hair.

Opuntia, Lunalia, Utceforp: Unofficial warnings for continuing the spam.