"Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past" [title of linked article].
My challenge to you was: Please explain how a catastrophic global flood over 4,000 years ago could have messed with our efforts at radiometric dating today. Quoting from an article about the value of prehistoric radiocarbon levels does not provide that explanation, at least not obviously. I can't engage your argument if I can't find one being made.
I remember it as from the science books.
Is your memory infallible? Of course not. Are you familiar with false memory? What about the social contagion of memory? For all I know, you could be one of those individuals with highly superior autobiographical memory, but evidence proves that even they are not immune to false memories and in remarkably similar numbers (
Patihis et al. 2013).
Given the extensive evidence on human memory being malleable, prone to error, and often unreliable, your anecdotal claim of a clear memory is not sufficient in itself. I am willing to believe that science textbooks in the 1980s or 1990s called biogenesis a scientific law, but that will take at least a modicum of evidence.
I am calling present day science deceived, or outright lies—God knows which one. That is how sure I am in that memory.
Your confidence was not in question, but rather your memory. Uniquely relevant to your claim, some people were absolutely certain that the books used to be called The Berenstein Bears. Notwithstanding their confident memory, the books never were called that. It was a false memory, one commonly called the Mandela Effect.
That being said, science is self-correcting. When something in science is deceived or a lie, it gets found out by the ongoing, rigorous application of scientific principles. There is almost no end to the examples of this happening. If you believe that a specific scientific claim is deceived or a lie, can you point to the science that exposes it as such?
It was the Psychiatric Association of the Southwest that announced on National News that homosexuality was a mental illness. Then they got threatening phone calls at the work place. They found out where they lived because they threatened them with phone calls at their homes. [Someone even] had a brick thrown through their window. And then the very next day, in National News, they recanted. This was in the early 1980s. Remember that? Try finding that on the internet now.
I am not aware of the Psychiatric Association of the Southwest, nor can I find any historical reference to such an organization. However, I do recall homosexuality being listed as a mental disorder in 1968 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). I also remember that the APA voted five years later to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders under considerable pressure by certain progressive psychiatrists and gay and lesbian activists who disrupted its proceedings and gave speeches; many elected officials were also pressured by campaigns across the nation.
Did some of these activists engage in threatening behavior and violence? It wouldn't surprise me. But help me understand what any of this has to do with science generally, or radiometric dating or biogenesis specifically?
Only a couple years ago they were not even denying the law of biogenesis being a law of science, but they were changing the definition even then by saying it is just about how life did not come from nothing.
Two things.
First, who are "they"?
Second, biogenesis was leveled in response to the archaic idea of spontaneous generation. In case you are missing the point, that means it was referring to complex life in modern circumstances, like maggots and fleas, not the origin of life four billion years ago.
Now they are gradually changing the law of biogenesis to biogenesis theory. See it being done here. ... Now search results do not even cite it as a law of science but just a theory. See that bait and switch now?
A law describes or predicts, and a theory explains. As descriptions don't turn into explanations, so laws of science don't turn into theories of science.
"What is the law of biogenesis?" [linked article].
Why did you link me to a disorganized Wordpress blog called Law Info which tries to infect visiting computers with malware?
(If you didn't know it was doing that, then it probably infected your computer without your knowledge.)
-----
Sources:
Lawrence Patihis
et al., "False Memories in Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory Individuals,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, no. 52 (2013): 20947–20952,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314373110.
