(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility
to express a strong wish:
Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)
http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)
“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.
“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.
‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.
“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.
Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.
“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.
Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.
I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.
My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.
This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.
“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.
“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …
Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)
Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.
Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:
When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…
Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?
You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.
You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”
Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”
I have presented some facts. However, as is predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.
Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”
CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.