Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 151 (8110 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2014 2:01 PM
83 online now:
Epee, jar (2 members, 81 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: a9.hard
Post Volume:
Total: 734,682 Year: 20,523/28,606 Month: 1,020/2,774 Week: 141/244 Day: 7/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 166 of 221 (508285)
05-12-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Coyote
03-23-2009 12:42 AM


Re: carbon dating and the "equilibrium" problem for Daniel4140
You claim to have a PHD in evolutionary sciences and works in radiocarbon dating. But for some reason these credentials & works you wont reveal in public, so we just 'have to take your word for it'.

You get away with making many claims assertions and accusations without ever backing them up with the same standards you hold others to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 03-23-2009 12:42 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2009 2:22 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2009 5:08 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 167 of 221 (508289)
05-12-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by IchiBan
05-12-2009 1:35 AM


Off Topic Crap
Ichiban (in regard to Coyote) writes:

You claim to have a PHD in evolutionary sciences and works in radiocarbon dating. But for some reason these credentials & works you wont reveal in public, so we just 'have to take your word for it'.

You get away with making many claims assertions and accusations without ever backing them up with the same standards you hold others to.

Coyote talks the talk and walks the walk, I have no doubt he is dead honest in his credentials.

Rather than declare some personal vendetta against Coyote, why don't you take up the challenge offered by RAZD in his correlations thread? After all, it is only your personal integrity that is at stake.

Also since you brought it up, your credentials are?


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by IchiBan, posted 05-12-2009 1:35 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 221 (508292)
05-12-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by IchiBan
05-12-2009 1:35 AM


Re: carbon dating and the "equilibrium" problem for Daniel4140
You claim to have a PHD in evolutionary sciences and works in radiocarbon dating. But for some reason these credentials & works you wont reveal in public, so we just 'have to take your word for it'.

I work with radiocarbon dating.

You get away with making many claims assertions and accusations without ever backing them up with the same standards you hold others to.

On the internet you are what you post. You wouldn't believe any credentials I claimed anyway, so just rely on what I post for any assessment of my knowledge in this field.

This is the correct thread if you want to dispute the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, so go ahead.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by IchiBan, posted 05-12-2009 1:35 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3240
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 169 of 221 (518416)
08-05-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
05-10-2009 12:23 PM


My interpretation - not two dating methods
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
quote:
BERKELEY - The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
...
The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC Berkeley adjunct professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate the dated layers.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the age of ancestor species of hominids.

Note that 14C was not used, but two independent methods, one radiometric and one chemical, and the dates of the two methods agreed.

My interpretation of this is that the dating was done with the argon/argon method at two or more locations and/or two different horizons (of, I presume, volcanics). It is unclear if the 160,000 and 154,000 dates are of two bracketing horizons, or if it is an error range of a date of a single horizon.

The chemical analysis of the volcanics was to correlated the volcanic horizon at one location to that of another location - In other words, to confirm they were the same horizon/layer. But this chemical analysis was not a dating methodology in itself.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 12:23 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4520
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 170 of 221 (518900)
08-09-2009 12:29 PM


Paging wirkkalaj
You made some assertions in this message Message 95.

Coyote asked you if you would be willing to defend them in an appropriate thread. I gave you the link direct to this thread. Are you going to post those arguments here? Are you just hoping everyone forgets? You have posted to other threads so we know you have had the time.

If you have evidence and believe you have a valid argument please repost it here. If you don't I guess it means you do not have an faith in your arguments.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2009 2:24 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 221 (519122)
08-11-2009 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Paging wirkkalaj
Bump.

Here's your big chance!

You challenged radiocarbon dating, so show us where its wrong.

Bump.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:29 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 172 of 221 (519657)
08-15-2009 9:59 PM


For tedrick79 -- C14 dating goes here
On another thread tedrick79 writes:

You cannot be seriously using carbon dating still. All radiometric dating insists the tester assumes initial C14 content. When an assumption is made it allows in presuppositions as to the actual date. Therefore radiometric dating is useless unless you were told exactly how much of the isotope existed when the sample was formed or died or was sealed into place.

Unfortunately, the thread you posted to was on another topic, so I am moving your post here where it fits within the topic.

Below are some good links where you can learn about the different methods of radiometric dating, of which radiocarbon dating (C14 or carbon 14 dating) is only one of many that are used.

Your post shows you know little about radiometric dating. If you would peruse the links below, and let us know of any questions you may have we would be happy to help you understand what is really happening with the different methods of radiometric dating.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work (archaeology), so I can handle that method. Others here are more familiar with the other methods of radiometric dating.

And it would be best if you did not just take what the creationist websites tell you uncritically. When it comes to science, they are not the best sources of information.


ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.


Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 4:10 PM Coyote has responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 173 of 221 (519726)
08-16-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Coyote
08-15-2009 9:59 PM


C14 dating goes here
Let me ask a simple question that I assuming is assumed.

How do testers find the initial content of carbon 14? That carbon which was tied up in the object when it was sealed up X number of years ago?

I have been told by more than a couple sources that initial C14 MUST be assumed.

I know we know the half-life of C14 - 5700 years or close iirc.

I know we can find the amount of C14 in an object currently.

How then do we know how much C14 (or any other dating isotope) was penned up in an object when it was formed.

Is someone assuming?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2009 9:59 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 5:38 PM Creation Guy has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 174 of 221 (519731)
08-16-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 4:10 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Let me ask a simple question that I assuming is assumed.

How do testers find the initial content of carbon 14? That carbon which was tied up in the object when it was sealed up X number of years ago?


Good question!

Everything living has the same ratio of C12 to C14. That is based on the fact that everything living is just loaded with carbon, and the ratio of C12 to C14 that all living things have is the ratio of the atmosphere. When an organism dies it stops interacting with the atmosphere and the C14 can then begin to drop to sub-atmospheric levels.

That should being up the question "How do you know the levels of C14 in the atmosphere in the past?" Another good question!

By counting back into the past using things with annular patterns (glacial varves, tree rings, etc.) you can obtain a radiocarbon date on something of known age and establish a correction curve to account for fluctuations of C14 in the atmosphere. The need to account for these atmospheric variations was noted by de Vries over 50 years ago, shortly after radiocarbon dating was invented.

Thus, we can use radiocarbon dating without the need for unsupported assumptions about initial levels--we can check on those levels directly.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 4:10 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:21 PM Coyote has responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 175 of 221 (519739)
08-16-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coyote
08-16-2009 5:38 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
So if you have the template (such as tree rings) you can carbon date things that are at least as young as the oldest tree?

I might can accept that - of course it doesnt help you much past around 3500 years. I hear that some years trees produce a couple rings as well?

Glaciars have annual patterns? As reliable as tree rings? I know they have layers that indicate snowfall and melt. I know also that they found World War 2 fighter planes under several hundreds of these layers. So several of them may form in the springs and falls of a year as it snows at night only to melt off during the day?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 5:38 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 7:54 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 176 of 221 (519745)
08-16-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:21 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
So if you have the template (such as tree rings) you can carbon date things that are at least as young as the oldest tree?

I might can accept that - of course it doesnt help you much past around 3500 years. I hear that some years trees produce a couple rings as well?


The trees that they use have been well researched and don't produce two rings a year with any appreciable frequency. They use the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. They have that sequence back past 12,500 years by matching overlapping ring patterns on the various standing dead trees.

In Europe they have a particular oak that they use for their sequence, but I am not as familiar with that particular one. Not surprisingly, the two sequences match extremely closely.

As additional verification, events such as volcanoes, which erupted at known dates, can be found and identified in the tree ring sequences based on the changes they made in the climate, hence in the growth patterns.

Glaciars have annual patterns? As reliable as tree rings? I know they have layers that indicate snowfall and melt. I know also that they found World War 2 fighter planes under several hundreds of these layers. So several of them may form in the springs and falls of a year as it snows at night only to melt off during the day?

The claim concerning the World War II planes is dealt with at the following link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Basically, the conditions where those planes landed are significantly different than at the locations where the ice cores are taken.

So far all of your objections to radiocarbon dating have been common talking points found on creationist websites.

Take a look at the links I provided in a previous post and a lot of your questions can be easily answered.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:21 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 11:29 PM Coyote has responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 1616 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 177 of 221 (529645)
10-09-2009 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Coyote
08-16-2009 7:54 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
I'll go right to the expert on the matter:

Dr. John Baumgardner:

"Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.


(Note: huge human skull found in 280 million yr old carbiniferous rock, Pennsylvania. As soon as I saw this I was reminded of the biblical passage, "There were giants in the earth in those days." Genesis 6.)

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.


(Note: This skull, dated at 125 to 300 million yrs by evolutionists has a bullet hole in the cranium.)

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.


(Note: The objects photographed above were discovered by gold prospectors, between 1991 and 1993 in numerous sites along the river Narada in Russia.They are spiral in shape and range in size from 0.003mm to 3cm.Tests upon the objects date them at between 20,000 and 318,000 years old!)

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended." Quoted from ICR.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 7:54 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by bluescat48, posted 10-10-2009 12:42 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 12:43 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 10-10-2009 2:46 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-10-2009 3:24 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 188 by MarkAustin, posted 10-11-2009 5:08 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 178 of 221 (529660)
10-10-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
You sure have a vivid imagination if the formation in the picture is what you are claiming is a human skull. And what does this have to do with C14 dating?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 11:29 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4674
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 221 (529661)
10-10-2009 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Sorry, you are just spouting standard creationist nonsense--at a Gish gallop pace--that has long since been refuted.

But I expected no less.

Your cut-and-paste creationist nonsense is not even worth the time it would take to refute (again), and you would probably neither read my refutation nor understand it--and you certainly wouldn't accept it.

So why bother.

But if you can narrow your post down to one argument maybe I'll explain it to you in detail. But leave out the nonsense of the many million year old fossil human skulls. That is beneath even your standard level of nonsense.

And when discussing radiocarbon dating don't bother with any samples that are within the margin of error. They are meaningless, and certainly don't prove the creationist case.

Edit to add: And you might read the previous posts on this thread. You might just learn something.

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 11:29 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 180 of 221 (529668)
10-10-2009 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Uh, excuse me, but just what the frickin' frak is your source?

How many years were you supposed to have been a teacher? How many years were you supposed to have been teaching your students about the very fundamental principles of research? Did you really disserve all those poor students so miserably for so many years?

You plopped into our laps, like a piping hot cow plop (which is a form of manure, BTW), an extended creationist quote, and you cannot provide any kind of bibliography other than "Quoted from ICR"? Would you have accepted that from one of your students?

Just where the frak did this so-called expert of yours make those statements?

I am only calling for the most basic standards of scholarship and research here. If that is beyond you, then we can only pity your poor students.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 11:29 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014