For anyone interested, the 14C book is: R E Taylor and …

Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Ervin Taylor.

For anyone interested, the 14C book is:

R E Taylor and Ofer Ben-Yosef. 2014. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. 2nd edition. Left Coast Press. You can obtain a copy through a number of online book sources including Amazon.

Ervin Taylor Also Commented

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
Dr. Pitman will be glad to learn that after much consultation with colleagues who are actually quite amused about the “radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bone” fantasy (I explained to them some of the non-scientific sociological and historical issues), I’m current working on a piece of dinosaur bone just so I can personally say that a given experiment was done and here are the results. (By the way, we lump the “dating” of dinosaur bone and wood from “Noah’s Ark” in the same category–strange.)

I realize that most scientists will think these exercises is a more than a little odd but when you are dealing with certain types of young earth/young life fundamentalist critics, one often have to go the “extra” mile that would not be necessary with reasonable individuals. And, when you get to be my age, you can do some experiments which, in ones younger years, would be rightly considered a little silly.

(By the way, Dr. Pitman might perhaps wish to purchase the 2nd edition (2014) of my Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective volume which I am pleased to say was coauthored with a distinguished Old World archaeologist. Dr. Pitman might learn some something about the nature of contemporary 14C dating.)

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
I was expecting that Dr. Pitman would be coming up with some fresh and updated responses to the Avondale publication. However, he presents nothing new. He seems to think that repeating old arguments, over and over again, most of which — especially his criticisms of radiocarbon dating and other evidence of great age of the living biosphere of our planet—have been answered so many times, will somehow magically do the trick. As Dr. Hare said about what Dr. Pitman and his fellow-travelers are doing, “they hope by throwing up at lot of sand that it will cloud the picture enough so that the real issues can be ignored.” It’s really interesting to watch Dr. Pitman making such a determined last stand in the light of so much evidence that his views cannot be sustained. I guess perhaps we should just feel sorry for him..

Recent Comments by Ervin Taylor

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
I wonder if Mr. Helm would favor some of us if he would be specific with what is the “recent advances in carbon 14 dating of fossils” that “tends to support creationism.” I know a little bit about 14C dating and can’t think of anything that would support such a statement.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins. Oh well, such a small mistake like that worth mentioning.

And I noticed that Sean got 9 up thumbs and I didn’t get any. O’ dear..

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Here we go again. If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination. Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites. If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
Dr. Pitman is being very disingenuous. And I think he knows that he is. The statement that all of the breeds of dog were produced in only the last 300 years or so fails to mention that in every case the breeding was not “natural” but was directed by a human agency for a specific purpose. That has nothing to do with “natural selection” processes, unless, of course, Dr. Pitman wishes to argue that God did the same thing that animal breeders do to produce some desired outcome. Now that would inject a new idea into the mix.

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
I have checked with the director of the lab which was supposed to have dated a “soft tissue” extract and he wrote back almost immediately that what they had been given was a whole bone, not a “soft tissue” extract and the bone was badly degraded from the point of view of any organic carbon. The date they obtained was obviously contamination and they reported that fact to the submitter. Apparently, another example, in a long string of examples of YEC/YLC creationists, who can’t keep his facts straight. Ordinarily, I would suggest that the submitter lied, or does not know the difference between a lie and the truth, or does not know the difference between a whole bone and a “soft tissue” extract but that’s not nice, so I won’t say it.

As for understanding the relevance of animal breeding, yes I certainly understand that and it still has nothing to do with the situation with regard to natural selection in a natural environment. I wonder if you understand that. It was clear to Alfred Russell Wallace, who, with Darwin, first came up with the idea of natural selection, that you could not use animal breeding experiments to simulate natural evolution.