Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 286 of 308 (476810)
07-26-2008 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 8:56 PM


Re: How dilution of C14 affect fossilation ratio of carbon to change
I'll include them in my next post...I'm waiting to see who else I've responded to makes the same scientific, logic and argumentation ethodological mistakes you did. Or you could just look them up yourself. If you're such an expert you should already be aware of them anway.
I am aware of the references you have in mind. I have read the sections on radiocarbon dating on many, if not most, of the creationist websites, and have looked up many of the scientific articles they cite. (I have a high threshold for nonsense.) Unfortunately, the task is often made more difficult because many of these creationist websites just pass on what is said on other websites, without giving the original references. But I have tracked down quite a few of them and I have yet to find one that actually says what creationists claim.
The only place these references are used as evidence of a young earth is on creationist websites.
Real scientists are aware of where the tiny amounts of C14 are coming from. Creationists, being unfamiliar with the process, are not. They think they have found a magic bullet to do away with "evilutionism" but only expose their own unfamiliarity with the process.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 8:56 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:38 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 287 of 308 (476812)
07-26-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 8:56 PM


Re: How dilution of C14 affect fossilation ratio of carbon to change
Are you setting yourself up as proper authority?
Just providing some background.
But I notice you ducked the question.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 8:56 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:24 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 291 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:26 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 288 of 308 (476813)
07-26-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Coyote
07-26-2008 8:10 PM


Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
You never responded to my critique of your misstating RATE's data. You misclaimed their own evidences demonstrated constant decay which they then disowned for their own conclusions that there is rapid decay when the book they just published is a case using 4 evidences of rapidly increased decay and instead of citing RATE you miscited a critique of RATE.
Also you contradict yourself in your zeal to refute me
in an earlier post you state
"Fossils are mineralized. Except for rare occasions they have no carbon."
Then in a response to my post you make excuses as to why the fossils I state have C14 in them...by your own quote that shouldnt be unless youy want to try to prove every case I refer to is one of your "rare occasions"? You dont even know what the cases are and havent asked for the references.
You dont strike me as academically honest, you've proven my point I predicted in my original post about bias, and your attempt to set yourself up as an authority is another weak position...even if you are an authority how you went about it was in poor taste at the least.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 8:10 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:25 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 289 of 308 (476814)
07-26-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:13 PM


False Argumentation
Your question is irrelevant. I dont need to have a PhD in math to correctly assert 2+2 is four. And a real authority will easily be able to correctly engage the argument and refute me instead of trying the ad/hoc, ad/hominem. You're proving the prediction in my OP. Everything but correct refutation.
And to answer your question I majored in Anthropology at the University of Utah and if you do know anything about dating you'll be familiar with the reference to Dr. Brown, once recognized as a world authority on radiometric dating who spent some time at the U of U.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:13 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 290 of 308 (476815)
07-26-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 9:20 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
I have better things this evening to do than argue with a young earth fundamentalist.
I can see that there is no way to convince you with the findings of science, so I will no longer even bother to try.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:20 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:32 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 295 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:59 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 291 of 308 (476816)
07-26-2008 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:13 PM


Your Signature
I find it hilarious that you employ classic logical fallacies in place of true argumentation talking about a scientific topic when your signature reads:
"Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge."
To date neither have you.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:13 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 292 of 308 (476817)
07-26-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:25 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
You havent presented any scientific reasoning or argumentation. All you have done is attack me personally. Present a proper argument and we'll debate.
You should have asked for my references for the actual mass spectrometer C14 tests which Cora did earlier. Wood found in strata assumed to be more than 200 million years old dated 37,000 years old. Dinobones dated 27,000 years old and I assume you know about the coal and diamonds being such an expert.
Silence denotes acquiescence so if you fail to respond to my arguments, as you have so far, then my arguments stand and a reasonable judge would concede the debate to me

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:25 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:46 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 293 of 308 (476818)
07-26-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:10 PM


Re: How dilution of C14 affect fossilation ratio of carbon to change
The problem with your supposition is that you indict the labs who conduct the tests.
Your own statement said there will be no C14 found in fossils except in rare circumstances. Now we are to believe that the opposite is true on every case where creationist scientists took organic matter to a lab and they tested young?
Come on...that defies credibility. And the labs write the possibilites of your rare circumstances but I guess you know that since you do the tests. And in each case...you still havent asked for them...your original quote was correct...no C14 should have been present, they used mass spectrometers and the chance of 'rare occasions' was exceedingly remote.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:10 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 294 of 308 (476819)
07-26-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
OK, just one:
Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
R.E. Taylor and John Southon
    to 80.0 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values - 69.3 0.5 ka-70.6 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.
They were not dating diamonds. They were using diamonds as a source free of C14 in order to establish the limits of their equipment! They were checking on the amounts of contamination in their AMS equipment from inefficiencies in the process. And creationists, misunderstanding this, jumped on it as their magic bullet to prove a young earth. Sorry, wrong again.
ps. I know one of the authors of this study. And you still haven't answered my question concerning your qualifications.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:32 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:31 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 295 of 308 (476821)
07-26-2008 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:25 PM


Do you realize where you are?
YOU COWARD!
You come to a creo v evo website, encounter a creo then state:
Coyote wrote: "I have better things this evening to do than argue with a young earth fundamentalist."
then w/o presenting one scientific argument or even one valid argument of any type state:
Coyote wrote: "I can see that there is no way to convince you with the findings of science, so I will no longer even bother to try."
All you did as attack me with the ad hoc/ad hominem.
This is typical. I'm glad this happened. Everything I have learned to expect from a pseudo-intellectual evo who implied expertise in C14 dating who couldnt present one valid response or one scientific argument. PERFECT REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE OF EVO DEBATING!
You've been refuted.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:25 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 296 of 308 (476823)
07-26-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Coyote
07-26-2008 9:46 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
I did answer your question. You probably havent had time to read it. And to further answer you I dont have to be 'the' expert in an area to understand and to debate correctly.
And no...this isnt the diamond study I was referring to! And again...you make a silly argument "I know one of the authors of this study" Yeah so? This isnt the argument about diamonds. It would help if you did know the studies and arguents about the diamonds instead of presenting one quote and setting up a straw-man.
And what about the fossilized wood found in Hawkesbury Sandstone from Sydney Australia that Geochron Labs in Boston dated using ams to 33,720 430 years BP yet it was found in strata from the Triassic period supposedly 225 millions years old? I looked for the refutations of that one and only one attempt was made on 'originsanswers' saying it 'probably wasnt wood' which they have no way of knowing since they dont have any of the samples and they also tried to claim the results were anomalous, w/o evidence again and is a classic biased response.
And how about the dino bones cited in the original post? Everyone negligently ignored it using the typical evo biases stating you cant C14 date fossils(which is in and of itself circular reasoning) because there wont be any C14 because the fossils are millions of years old. But when it's demonstrated the evo assumption is wrong and there is C14 showing a date less than 50000 BP then w/o responsible investigation or evidence it's assumed the readings are anomalous.
Here is the info on the dino bones C14 testing, it's easier just to cut and past the info:
"Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).
The expensive accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS) gave the most reproducible dates namely 23,760 +/-270 B.P. at the prestigious University of Arizona National Academy of Science facilities and 25,750 +/-280 at an overseas AMS Lab; the sample at the former was surface scrapings with a carbon content of 3.5% and the latter was a gaseous sample from the crushing of about 180 grams of bone fragments.
Other fragments were dated by a third laboratory using the beta counter; dates of 32,400 and 36,500 were obtained. These along with 39,500 B.P. for dinosaur coprolyte found buried with Acrocanthosaurus were some 7,000 or so years older than the dates obtained with the highly respected AMS. It is important to note that the 32,400 B.P. date was obtained on the same sample that was dated overseas on the more sensitive AMS system which gave a date of 25,750 +/-280 years B.P. A sample of the same carbon dioxide gas was used in both systems with the 7,000 years younger date being obtained on the AMS.
Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today; and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, not the true dates. The carbon dating assumptions are thought to give radiocarbon dates that are still too high based on the discoveries of Dr. Libby (5), and interpretations of Whitelaw (6) and Aardsma (11) and others. The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times is no small discovery."
Different labs, different bones, different sources, same testing used by evos, correct result...young age.
Deal with it
Phileo
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2008 9:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2008 11:33 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 297 of 308 (476826)
07-26-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
08-11-2006 5:27 AM


Re: Thanks Randman
The sources Randman gave were actually accurate. If you had bothered to check them for yourself instead of assuming your assumptions are correct and mocking anyone who disagrees with you. In one, multiple samples of dino bones from several museums and pvt collections were C14 dated yielding dates of tens of thousands of years not millions. C14 was present shouldnt have been.
As well per honesty, check the post responding to Randman about misrepresentations. He quotes Randman and changes the quote! He changed the page number cited by Randman from 999 to 1000! That's blantant dishonesty.
You Evo's always employ the same false argumentation and reason in a circle. Your premise is always "My assumptions are right" And then you reason from there: Therefore anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and when they cite scientific evidence they are either stupid and misunderstand or are misrepresenting it and therefore are stupid or lying and dishonest.
Read my responses to Coyote about the multiple evidences from multiple C14 labs using ams (regarded as the best) testing organic sources, assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old, yielding dates less than 50,000 BP.
And dont even respond about possible anomalies etc...unless you have evidence or responsible argumentation that in the cases cited this is actually the case then you have nothing credible to say.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2006 5:27 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2008 11:09 PM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 303 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2008 4:06 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 298 of 308 (476829)
07-26-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 10:48 PM


Re: Thanks Randman
He changed the page number cited by Randman from 999 to 1000! That's blantant dishonesty.
Do you think just maybe the paper wasn't all on a single page, and the quote Coyote used was on the second page?
Oh, look!
Rainer Berger, Amos G. Horney, and W. F. Libby Science 22 May 1964 144: 995-1001
and that's even wrong in the online index at Science - it really is pp 999-1001
Edited by Coragyps, : add cite
Edited by Coragyps, : add note

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:48 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 11:44 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 299 of 308 (476835)
07-26-2008 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
Here is the info on the dino bones C14 testing, it's easier just to cut and past the info:
But where did all that come from? If you c'n'p'd it, it has to have been published, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:31 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 11:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 300 of 308 (476836)
07-26-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Coragyps
07-26-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Thanks Randman
You missed the point
The man quoted randman but changed the quote. He even did it per the code used on this site meaning he had to deliberately go in and change the page number. You cant edit quotes that is dishonest.
It is irrelevant that the article was 3 pages long and listed in Science as pages 999-1001 (BTW I went to the online index and it is listed as 999-1001,I'm not sure where you were).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2008 11:09 PM Coragyps 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