Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 74 (107488)
05-11-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
05-11-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Courtesy
I have done alot of reading lately. I find it difficult to find unbiased sources. The creation sites are biased as are the non creation sites. It would be great to have a thread dedicated to dendrochronology - not simply that a calibration has been made, but a real discussion about how the calibrations were made. Everywhere I look, I see the dendro calibration implication. Not once have I found how the calibrations were caried out. I have found sites that may require a degree in chemistry, math and physics to understand, but how about a discussion of a-z about how all the calibration has been achieved - not throuth lake varves or ice, but for now through trees. By the way I did read Alley's book 'Two Mile Time Machine.' Not an easy book. I'm still processing it.
rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2004 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2004 2:55 PM rickrose has not replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2004 11:57 PM rickrose has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 74 (107492)
05-11-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sylas
05-11-2004 2:14 PM


Re: Little blue boxes; and much else.
Sylus, I downloaded the article ver batim, non altered.
rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 2:14 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminSylas, posted 05-11-2004 2:57 PM rickrose has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 49 of 74 (107497)
05-11-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Sylas
05-11-2004 4:37 AM


Re: Article from Awake magazine
Sylas writes:
Adminniemooseus... the source was given in the original post. It is Awake magazine, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The publication date was given as "sept 22, 1986". It is not on-line, as far as I can tell. My guess is that the material was transcribed. I had a look as well when the post appeared, pegged it as a transcription, and did not bother to comment.
I have more details, which I will add in edit. Stand by.
Here are some more details.
Message 35 contains extracts from "Awake!" magazine, published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. The extracts are acknowledged.
The first extract is apparently from an article entitled "The Radiocarbon Clock", in the September 22 issue, most likely on pages 21 to 26; and the second extract is from the April 8 issue, 1972.
The curious thing about these extracts is that same pairing of articles appears in some Usenet posts. For example, this post by a "richmac" (Richard Mackenzie) has the same pairing of articles. However, the Usenet article begins with an additional article from the 1986 issue, and the post here concludes with some additional material from an unknown source.
The Usenet article by Richard is available on google here:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?selm=36fd187c.64923567...
I have not been able to locate the additional paragraphs, which refer to "D. Earl Nelson". However, I have found an on-line copy in Italian! See DATAZIONE - parte 2.
Anno pi anno meno...
Solo quest’anno Science News, in un articolo intitolato Nuove date per utensili ‘primitivi’, diceva:
Quattro manufatti di osso che si pensava fornissero la prova che l’uomo occup l’America del Nord circa 30.000 anni fa hanno, al massimo, solo 3.000 anni circa, riferiscono l’archeologo D. Earl Nelson della Simon Fraser University della Columbia Britannica e i suoi colleghi in SCIENCE del 9 maggio. . . .
La differenza nelle stime delle et fra i due tipi di campioni di carbonio dello stesso osso a dir poco significativa. Per esempio, a uno ‘scarnatoio’ usato per staccare la carne dalle pelli animali era stata attribuita inizialmente, col metodo del radiocarbonio, un’et di circa 27.000 anni. Ora quell’et stata riveduta e l’oggetto avrebbe circa 1.350 anni. (10 maggio 1986)
Compare with rickrose's extract:
Just this year Science News, under the title New Dates for ‘Early’ Tools, reported: Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. . . .
The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant. For example, a ‘flesher’ used to remove flesh from animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been revised to about 1,350 years old."-May 10, 1986.
Note that even the strange capitalization of SCIENCE is the same. Clearly, there is a source behind this, which needs to be acknowledged to remain consistent with the guidelines.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Sylas, posted 05-11-2004 4:37 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 50 of 74 (107509)
05-11-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by rickrose
05-11-2004 2:19 PM


Re: Courtesy
Rickrose: I'm sure we need a new thread for any real detail on dendrochronology, but in the meantime, you might look at Henri Grissino-Mayer's page:
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
has definitions and an introduction to how the method works. He has zillions of links elsewhere on his site to the literature, but you may need to be able to read Finnish to make use of all of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 2:19 PM rickrose has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 74 (107512)
05-11-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by rickrose
05-11-2004 2:24 PM


Re: Little blue boxes; and much else.
(Sylas puts on his Admin hat)
rickrose writes:
Sylus, I downloaded the article verbatim, non altered.
The forum guidelines prohibit you from downloading large slabs of material (guideline 10), and prohibit you from quoting material without giving the source (guideline 6).
You've built up a certain amount of credibilty here with your approach, so I'm not proposing to throw the book at you... yet.
Could you please declare your source? Where did you download from? Note that if you use a secondary source which then quoted "Awake" and the other material, you should cite the secondary source that you used yourself.
What I find odd in the the structure of the post is an extract from Awake 1986, then an extract from Awake 1972, and then without warning a switch to text quoted from Science in 1986. Where did those last two paragraphs come from? Are they part of the original Awake 1986 article? How did it all get mixed up like this?
Thanks -- Sylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-11-2004 01:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 2:24 PM rickrose has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 74 (107520)
05-11-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by rickrose
05-11-2004 1:47 AM


Message to Adminsylus
{ AdminSylas is positive that this bit is taken from some different
unnamed source. Be aware that failing to quote your sources is a
violation of guidelines, and may result in restricted permissions. Make the source clear, please.}
Dear AdminSylus, I don't know who you are. Please be assured that I coppied the article ver batim from my quoted source. The comment in question was published in Awake Sept 22,1986, pg 22. If you do not believe me, I will send you a hard copy of the material in question if you provide a mailing adress.
The following that seems to be in dispute was in a box (not part of flowing text) on pg 22. The article spans pages 21-26.
Again this is exactly how it appears from the 1986 article.
[Box on page 22]
Just this year Science News, under the title "New Dates for 'Early' Tools," reported: "Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his
colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. . . .
"The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant. For example, a 'flesher' used to remove flesh from animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been
revised to about 1,350 years old."-May 10, 1986. (article spans pages 21 to 26. The box with the disputed quote is on pg. 22.
Thank You
Please respond
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 1:47 AM rickrose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 3:18 PM rickrose has not replied
 Message 54 by AdminSylas, posted 05-11-2004 3:24 PM rickrose has replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 74 (107523)
05-11-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by rickrose
05-11-2004 3:09 PM


Re: Message to Adminsylus
Dear Adminsylus, you gave me a pretty strong censure stating you are positive that I am borrowing unnamed sources. In this case you are wrong.
Sincerely,
rickrose
This message has been edited by rickrose, 05-11-2004 02:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 3:09 PM rickrose has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 74 (107528)
05-11-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by rickrose
05-11-2004 3:09 PM


Re: Message to Adminsylas
Hi rick. I am one of the moderators on the board here, and also a long time contributor under the name "Sylas", before I joining the admin team. I juggle two roles; I'm both a poster and a moderator. I have accounts for each one. You can look for more information in my on-line profile. When I use the AdminSylas account I am usually taking some kind of official or semi-official action.
All posters, however, are part of the community and may comment on such things as violations of guidelines. Admins are the only ones who can take direct actions.
I think I understand what you are saying here... but what about the 1972 article? Where does that start, and finish? Was it repeated in the 1986 article? Also, you spoke of "downloading". I guess that means this is on-line somewhere? A link would be good. You could then quote the extracts you really want to focus upon, and give a link for the rest.
Once I understand how your quote relates to the two Awake article mentioned, and/or other sources on-line or off, I'll clear the edits made to your original article.
For future reference, the forum is intended for people to make their own arguments. These can be backed up with reference or citation to other sources -- in fact we encourage this. But you can't just transcribe entire articles. The idea is to make your own contributions, and then reference your sources and quote selected extracts to defend the position you are arguing.
Cheers -- AdminSylas
Added in edit. PS. My apologies for the remark about unnamed sources. I think I understand what is going on here. The 1986 article must be making a brief one sentence reference to the 1972 article. I had thought it was a second extract.
Thus your sources are named. The problem is only with the use of long extracts.
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-11-2004 02:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 3:09 PM rickrose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 3:50 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 74 (107532)
05-11-2004 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AdminSylas
05-11-2004 3:24 PM


Re: Message to Adminsylas
Ok, I did not realize that I could not post an article that long. I will refrain from doing so. I do not want to be kicked off the forum. I am enjoying it as time permits. The articles I alluded to are not on the internet. I do have them on CDRom. I never read the 1972 articles, but as I just scaned them, they look good. In fact, they explain the methods used in c-14 calibration. I will read them now.
When I copy from the CDRom version, the text doesn't flow. It skips spacing. I only have works. Is there a way to overcome this. Also could you please tell me how I can quote someone from a previous comment in a blue box as everyone else does.
Thank You
rickrose
sorry for the misunderstanding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AdminSylas, posted 05-11-2004 3:24 PM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 05-11-2004 4:00 PM rickrose has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 56 of 74 (107536)
05-11-2004 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by rickrose
05-11-2004 3:50 PM


Quoting
If you use the "raw text" blue button at the bottom of a post you like you can see exactly what they entered.
All the codes are under "UBB Code is On" to the left when you are creating a post.
In the case of the blue box all you do is surroung the quote in [ qs ] [ /qs ] (but leave the spaces next to the [ ] out.
Thus:
[ qs ] test quote [ /qs ]
will procduce
test quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 3:50 PM rickrose has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 57 of 74 (107540)
05-11-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 1:07 PM


BAE and 13,600 years
Hi Ned,
I appreciate your support. Finding someone to discuss this with has been difficult and the resulting clamor may have clouded the issue. I don't know PaulK that well so if you would mentor/monitor. Thanks, it will be short.
Statement of purpose:
To show that while using a simple program and the best numbers I could find, the result which occured was amazing to myself (and another). I am not trying to prove that the earth is flat or round; I am simply making an observation which I thought worth considering: that the resulting years to reach the current level of C14 saturation is very close to the age that some creationists say is the age of the earth. Any extension of it, if done, will be done by someone else as I am not a scientist.
Introduction:
First, I thought that this work was so obvious that there would be no need to state it but I will gladly satisfy the request(s).
At the time I did the work I was not aware of anyone else having done it. I have not been able to locate on the web the explicit statements I will make today though some results I have seen may have been derived by the same method. If PaulK is correct (the variation has been too great to track) then my observation has no scientific value. If Ned is correct (the variation has been at most 10%) then there may be some scientific value.
Development of the idea:
In a discussion I was having about C14, the concept sounded very much like a model of it could fall into the everyday category of money management. Dollars come in and dollars go out - C14 comes in and C14 goes out.
The annuity model came to mind. Starting with a dollar amount, a fixed interest rate, and regular annual payout, how long can the payout be made?
PA (payment_amount) = regular_pay_out
AB (amount_balance) = initial_dollar_amount
IR (interest_rate) = fixed_interest_rate
YR (years) = 0
while AR GT PA
do
AB := AB * ( 1 + IR )
AB := AB - PA
YR := YR + 1
done
The same program could be used for balance owed on a house to see how many years payments would have to be made.
PA := regular_pay_in
AB := initial_loan_balance
IR := fixed_interest_rate
The same program works for predicting how many years it will take to meet a savings goal:
PA := regular_deposit
AB := 0.00
IR := fixed_interest_rate
What about the somewhat different C14 issue? The issue is different because a fixed amount is coming in and a percent is going out. Also, since the amount coming in may vary over time, the indication "current' needed to be added.
Finalization specifically for the C14 issue:
To make the program run faster, the accumulations were annualized. The result will change if a smaller period is used.
CAA := current_C14_annual_accumulation_amount
AB := 0 (accumulated balance in the atmosphere at at year 0)
IR := rate_which_makes_one_half_in_5730_years
A few attempts gave 0.99988 ^ 5730 = 0.50+
In the money management programs the goal was always zero or an amount. In the C14 version a parameter is needed to indicate how far along the saturation process is (100% is never reached though 100,000 years brings it close). Also the saturation amount is not known but the saturation condition is recognizable in that the accumulations will equal the decays.
CAD := current_C14_annual_decay_amount
IDA (iteration_decay_amount) = 0
IAD will approach the current_annual_decays
while IDA LT CAD
do
IDA := AB * ( 1.0 - 0.99988 )
AB := AB + CAA - IAD
YR := YR + 1
done
I could not cut-and-paste my program so please be gentle with this untested version.
Back in 1978 when I assigned CAA the value 22 and CAD the value 17 (accumulations/decays persecond annualized), the result was 13,600. On a modern computer today, the result was around 12,500. Please evaluate the (intended) program then provide current accumulation and decay values and let's see what comes out. If it is around 12,000 years then I ask is it possible that a new atmosphere was placed on the earth around 12,000 years ago.
Thank you for your patience,
Bob, Alice, and Eve
Edited to clarify 22 and 17 as per second annualized.
This message has been edited by BobAliceEve, 05-11-2004 03:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 1:07 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2004 4:46 PM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 59 by Rick Rose, posted 05-11-2004 11:22 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 74 (107549)
05-11-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BobAliceEve
05-11-2004 4:10 PM


Re: BAE and 13,600 years
That's what I thought you were using.
It cannot produce a valid date.
If the input was constant and the atmosphere was not in equilibrium then you could conclude that the age of the atmosphere was less than the time taken to reach equilibrium.
However if there were an event that significantly affected the amount of C14 then that would upset the equilibrium - and we know that such an event has happened in the last few decades. Nuclear weapons tests have produced extra C14.
Worse, if the input is not constant then there is no reason to expect the C14 to settle down to an equilibrium - or to stay there if it does. And if it did it would be disturbed as soon as the input level changed again. We know that this is the case, too. C14 is normally produced by cosmic rays - and therefore depend on the cosmic ray flux arrivng at Earth. And that is not constant.
So - whether the atmosphere is in equilibrium with regard to C14 has nothing to do with its age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-11-2004 4:10 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 74 (107633)
05-11-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BobAliceEve
05-11-2004 4:10 PM


Re: BAE and 13,600 years
Very logical and probably original. I am anxious to see some of the results or imputs from others. There is a point that I would like to make. There have been tremendous solar flares. No one knows the intensity of these flares in millenia past. But there has been a chart published for recent measurable solar history. I don't have it in front of me, but one solar flare on Feb 23, 1956 produced as much carbon 14 in a few hours as in a whole year of average cosmic radiation. Input/output may not be steady even over long periods of time. There are also other factors that can change the ratios such as past sea levels.
It is true that most creationists would be pleased with your results if they seemed correct. I am a believer in Gen creation. No where in the record can I come up with thier model of a young earth, and I believe every word of Gen ch 1-3. Nevertheless, your novel aproach is just that. Thank you for your expansion of thought.
rickrose
This message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-11-2004 10:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-11-2004 4:10 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2004 12:10 AM Rick Rose has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 74 (107644)
05-11-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by rickrose
05-11-2004 2:19 PM


Re: Courtesy
rick -
sorry, I have a link on my thread about age correlations
(http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth)
in the section on the oak tree ring data that gives a pretty good overview of the process of dendrochronology:
Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating
including some of the problems encountered.
The age is determined by counting annual growth rings. When you reach the maximum age of living trees then you need to find samples that overlap with the rings of living trees and then trees that overlap those rings. The pattern of tree rings is not the same due to climatological variations.
For instance there is a time known as "the year without a summer" (click) and this can be found in the tree ring chronology as a very week summer ring or a double winter ring.
Remember that good dating work always relies on more than one method to ensure there is not some kind of contamination.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 2:19 PM rickrose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rick Rose, posted 05-12-2004 1:48 AM RAZD has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 61 of 74 (107645)
05-12-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rick Rose
05-11-2004 11:22 PM


So?
I don't have it in front of me, but one solar flare on Feb 23, 1956 produced as much carbon 14 in a few hours as in a whole year of average cosmic radiation.
So what? As as been pointed out a bunch of times it is known that the C-14 production rate varies. The amount of variation is not all that large by the time it is mixed into the atmosphere.
The important point that can not be ignored is that, in spite of various things to be careful of, it works! The C-14 measurements corrolate with known historical events, tree ring counting, lake varve counting and all of these corrolate with each other. The corralations demonstrate that even with all the variations the methods work.
Until the corralations are explained by some other means we can be very damm sure that we do have a good dating method. Care to explain why you would think otherwise?
Input/output may not be steady even over long periods of time.
Yes, that has been pointed out and has been measured against known dates.
There are also other factors that can change the ratios such as past sea levels.
Where did this come from? What other factors? How do past sea levels change the C-14, c-12 ratio?
Now you're starting to make things up to try to cast doubt on the measurements while ignoring the corralations. Without explaining the agreement amonst different methods and counts you haven't begun to touch the core strenghts of the measurements.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2004 11:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rick Rose, posted 05-11-2004 11:22 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Rick Rose, posted 05-12-2004 12:22 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 64 by Rick Rose, posted 05-12-2004 1:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024