Ian Juby's egregious quote mine regarding 14C

[wearestarstuffsagan]

wait, so hes a lying, quote mining, hypocritical creationist? are not they all?

[machinedean100]

Ok I am going to put thus in super laymens terms again. So, everyone can understand it. There is no radio carbon in the one stuff. There is some radio carbon n some other stuff. So, we are going to use that stuff to make up a date for the diamonds. IN the fifth sentence they state they measured some stuff in the diamonds after they already stated they could not.So, with other stuff there gonna just make up some stuff.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 That's not put in laymens terms, that's a complete misrepresentation. Background 14C is only part of it, nitrogen enriched via uranium-thorium series decay can be converted into 14C

[machinedean100]

Potholer and I quote there's no mother %&$@in carbon in it. 

[machinedean100]

There are trying to account for what they cant measure by measuring the u decay in the surrounding area. Then they are going to just make up the level of14c in the diamonds. that's pretty much what it says. So, I think you guys just hurt our self when you do this.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 Apparently you're not familiar with what a uranium-thorium series decay does to nitrogen or the fact that there exists non-organic background carbon, IE marble and limestone.

The only thing sadder than someone like Ian spouting garbage like this is when someone even less informed tries to defend it.

[machinedean100]

@TheScienceFoundation Given your first statement Your second is irrelevant.You guys lame you know it. All you guys do is insult people and lie your ass's off. I am really getting sick and tired of stunts like this. Man your are just troll. Running about calling people stupid and liars. When this is exactly what your are your self. Its ridiculous.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 No, given my first statement, my second statement is completely accurate. You have no idea what the articles talking about and you very clearly have no idea about processes that can produce anomalous 14C

[machinedean100]

@TheScienceFoundation Apparently your not familiar with the machinedean!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 Not personally but I've talked to thousands just like you.

[machinedean100]

@TheScienceFoundation I have talked to thousands just like you also.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 Yet you're still ignorant in geology, sad.

[machinedean100]

Do you even understand what that says? it says that the production of 14c by thermal neurtons at the presently observed levels is un able. BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. It can not account for the measure of 14c in diamonds. Then it goes speak on a plausible method that might get it right.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 Wrong, it says that because of the high variability of uranium and nitrogen in crustal rock, coupled with the fact that uranium series decay can produce 14C from N, that the initial objection regarding the 14C content is irrelevant.

[machinedean100]

@TheScienceFoundation LOl exactly. Thats what I just said. BY measuring what was in the surrounded area there were just going to make up the radiocarbon levels they could not account for.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 You do realize that this is from a creationist article right? They weren't going to give any explanation they didn't have to for aberrant 14C but they had to be legitimate and accurate for their work to even be considered.

[MacNutz2]

What do you expect from a "Professor" who is only qualified to teach vocal music at the high school level? Juby is a complete fake. A part time high school choir leader who makes more money pretending to be an expert on things he knows nothing about.

Honesty has no meaning in the moral bankruptcy of religion.

[LithodidMan]

Thanks for posting this TSF, it is sad that Juby-fans will not actually take a look and see how dishonest this kind of sourcing really is.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@LithodidMan He undoubtedly saw it, I tried to post it as a reply to his video but he didn't accept it.

[machinedean100]

@TheScienceFoundation lol its right there in the video responses.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@machinedean100 Yes, Ian's horrific dishonesty is right there in the video response.

[salmagnum]

I have seen quote mining used routinely by both sides in debate. Obviously, when a creationist quote mines an evolutionist they are only going to use the part that supports them and vice versa.When you quote mine from the opposition you do not take the whole as you only agree with a particular observation or finding of theirs- not in the speculative conclusion they draw from it. The theories of E & C, I would assert,are BOTH interpretations of the same observable fact in line with preconception.

[salmagnum]

@salmagnum Basically, when you quote mine, you are saying, See? Here even the opposition agrees with me!

I have seen each and everyone of the "four horsemen" do it, so you will have to set them straight first to avoid inevitable claims that you are being hypocritical.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@salmagnum I'm not saying it's right for anyone to quote mine, but regarding your implication that Ian is somehow excused;

en.wikipediadotorg/wiki/Tu_quo­que