Longitivity of a Shark: if only
Radiocarbon was reliable
Koot van
Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD) Visiting Professor, Kyungpook National University,
Sangju Campus, South Korea, Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College, Australia
Scholars counted the years of a shark in
Greenland and found it is 400 years old. It must be, they thought since this shark
only grows 1cm per year. They dated it with radio-carbon dating systems and
concluded that the shark was born between an earlier date and a later date,
probably. The earlier date would be 1501 and the later date is 1744 for its
birth.
BBC article online http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37047168 Just when I got excited about the
subject of “longitivity and the Bible” and skeptics rejecting that Adam could
be in the 900’s and Noah was born in 3190 BCE and the Flood came in 2692 BCE
and Noah lived after the flood to the age of 950 years. It is just half more
than the fish of our day. Just when I got excited and layback
about this concept scientists came forward with, I read the last paragraph of
the BBC 12th of August 2016 blog indicating how the age was
calculated for the fish. It is better to let the BBC blog speaks:
“Another author of the study, Prof Christopher Ramsey, director of Oxford
Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at the University
of Oxford, said that radiocarbon dating could be used to determine the
ages of other animals, but was not likely to be chosen as the primary method. "For many animals we have other
methods to determine age," he said. "Also, the radiocarbon method is
not very precise, and so is only really relevant for very long-lived
species." He added that the statistical method
used to determine the sharks' ages was Bayesian statistics. "Bayesian statistics were first
worked out by the Rev Bayes in the 18th Century. This means he will have been
working on this when some of these oldest sharks were young." You cannot get it better. Out of the
horse’s mouth. A famous professor and co-worker on this age determining team
admitted some serious limitations: 1. Radiocarbon dating is not reliable. 2.
The dating is based upon Bayesian statistics worked out by a cleric in the
middle of the 18th century but used widely in science in jurisprudence
for the past 200 years. What is Bayesian Statistics? In the Wikipedia blog a reference is cited giving the key idea: “One of the key ideas of Bayesian statistics is that ‘probability
is orderly opinion, and that inference from data is nothing other than the
revision of such opinion in the light of relevant new information’”.(1) The basic tenet is
that truth is not absolute but based on an estimation of probabilities and that
estimate can be adjusted with better or more data later but as for now that is how things are. In fact, another article worked on fallacies of prosecutors and
defendants as well as the fallacy of the jury utilizing Bayesian statistics and
from that article a sentence is worth looking at: “Despite
the wide acceptance of Bayesian reasoning as a logical means of formalising uncertainty, it has been regarded with
great scepticism in courtrooms.”(2) Bayesian scholars allocate something as
uncertain and then try to set up a system of logic to formalize and order
reasoning to bring probabilities as a new means to suggest truth that may not
be truth or absolute truth but just present perceived truth within a range of possibilities
but not exact. Evolution is such a
case. Dating of Homo
Naledi, the skeletons of pigmy-like, Zika virus attacked, individuals been
dumped or fled from killing due to their handicap situation in one of the caves
in the Transvaal region of South Africa found in 2014-2015 was released in June
2016.(3)
See bibliography
below for article where photo appeared. Microcephalism that
is greatly known to all due to the Zika virus, is not considered at all by
these scientists.(4) The fallacy of radiocarbon dating systems is that it is not
reliable says the professor and furthermore it is only for old remains. But,
what the professor did not say, is that it is based on the fallacy that
everything in the world remained the same for millennia so that climate did not
change, no adaption of species to environmental disasters occurred in fact
everything was always uniform so that the axiom of Uniformatism is that essence
of the unreliability of the claims of this “science of uncertainty” or
Bayeristic probabilities of uncertainty and belief. They love
Wittgenstein over a thousand. They like paradoxal truth. They reject absolute
truth and reject God’s revelation to mankind although they even have to admit
like Richard Dawkins to Ben Stein in the interview, that a signature in nature
indicates that there must have once been an Intelligent being “who also came
about by evolution” (Dawkins) “who created us”. Atheist, nihilist, a few times
remarried and with an agenda to downplay creationists, and downplay God, but he
admits that creation is a scenario to be considered. How long is it
going to take science to realize that they are been conned into a fallacy
tunnel by Uniformatistic theorists, by Evolutionistic models built on that
premise, what the Lyell glasses is all about in his geological design. One system
skew overlapping another skew system overlapping another and so on until they
all starting to believe in this network of overlappings, deceived themselves
and now deceiving others whom they teach or talk to. Even though no
evolution happened on Mars and no evidence of it either, nor the Moon, they
keep avoiding the Creation issue connected to our world and the Creator Who
made it possible, and Christ Who wants to solve the sin and deterioration
problem of this world.
(1) Edwards, W.; Lindman, H.; Savage, L. J. (1963). "Bayesian
Statistical Inference for Psycho-logical Research". Psychological Review. 70: 193–242. doi:10.1037/h0044139 (quote: pp
519-520). Cited as per Dennis Fryback's preface in O’Hagan, A.; Luce, B. (2003).
"A primer on Bayesian Statistics in Health Economics and Outcomes
Research" (PDF). Bayesian Initiative
in Health Economics & Outcomes Research and the Centre for Bayesian
Statistics in Health Economics. Retrieved June 9, 2015. (2) The “Jury Observation Fallacy” and
the use of Bayesian Networks to present Probabilistic Legal Arguments Norman
Fenton and Martin Neil Computer Science Department Faculty of Informatics and
Mathematical Sciences Queen Mary and Westfield College, London E1 4NS. and
Agena Ltd 11 Main Street Caldecote Cambridge, CB3 7NU email: norman@agena.co.uk
Version 5.0, 27 March 2000. Retrieved: http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/jury_fallacy.pdf (3) Mana Dembo, Davorka Radovcic,
Heather M. Garvin, Myra F. Laird, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E. Scott, Juliet
Brophy, Rebecca R. Ackermann, Chares M. Musiba, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Arne
Mooers, Mark Collard, The evolutionary relationships and age of Homo naledi:
An assessment using dated Bayesian phylogenetic methods. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.04.008. Retrieved at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/human-evolution/news/homo-naledi-bayesian-statistics-june-2016 (4)
Koot van Wyk, “Homo Naledi finds in RSA and micro-cephalism: Short Notes”. (13th
of September 2015). http://www.egw.org at Van
Wyk Notes number http://www.egw.org/zboard/324625