Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:46 AM
451 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 447 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,961 Year: 6,567/21,208 Month: 2,328/2,634 Week: 516/572 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Panda
Member (Idle past 1062 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 137 of 194 (684180)
12-16-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 8:37 AM


Re: Suggestion
morningstar writes:

For me now the main thing that you understand only one thing.


Ok.

monringstar writes:

Of chalk and charcoal is time sharing which depends on at what point the water fills one or the other pools.


The sentence is not translated correctly.
I do not understand.

I doubt this will get better.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 8:37 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by foreveryoung, posted 12-16-2012 1:07 PM Panda has responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 138 of 194 (684195)
12-16-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
12-14-2012 11:04 PM


for RAZD
For RAZD
Curiously, your opinion is strangely incapable of changing one type of rock into another. Limestone is determined by the chemical content of the stones, and sandstone is determined by the chemical content of the stones. Sandstone hardened (solidified?) is still sandstone.
__________________________________________

I probably will answer even though the quality of translation simply disgusting, but still can be confused with limestone chalk. But this fact in that my post is not important. The main role is played by the hardened sandstone. Which I think is difficult to confuse with any breed. http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/ibr2020-12/view/674138?page=0
I breed presented in this order have not yet met. And the fact that this fact holds. He turns all of paleontology as a whole. In any case, these ancient limestone on the planet should not meet or anything. And if carbon dating puts it later any of the periods, it already means that this method can be put into question. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_80043_c2b863f6_XXL.jpg


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2012 11:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 11:19 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 139 of 194 (684199)
12-16-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Panda
12-16-2012 9:51 AM


Re: Suggestion
morningstar writes:

Of chalk and charcoal is time sharing which depends on at what point the water fills one or the other pools.

I think he is saying the formation of chalk and charcoal depend on the timing of some water process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 12-16-2012 9:51 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 1:36 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Panda, posted 12-17-2012 7:19 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 140 of 194 (684201)
12-16-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by foreveryoung
12-16-2012 1:07 PM


foreveryoung
morningstar writes:
Of chalk and charcoal is time sharing which depends on at what point the water fills one or the other pools.
_______________________________________
foreveryoung writes: I think he is saying the formation of chalk and charcoal depend on the timing of some water process.
__________________________________________
You are a bit wrong. Coal contains no wood. It consists entirely of the remains of marine animals. Charcoal not exist. In any case, should not exist for many reasons.
However, there is a small paradox.

In fact that the oceans were formed relatively long And before their main volume was in Russian lowlands by the fact that large amounts of peat are in different places in thick coats. Even Ural hills contain them in large quantities. The so-called Moscow syneclise spent quite a thorough research on the subject of their biology.
The bulk of this marine animals. What was the depth of the sea can only be guessed at. But along with the Russian lowland peat bogs also contain coal reserves. But the issue of how to combine the direct vicinity of coal mines and peat science comments on this account, as far as I know, did not do, even though they both lie on some platforms. However, what is coal? It burned peatlands. Conversion of peat into coal deposits occur in the oxygen-free combustion. Moreover, the Russian lowland moors young enough education. Not seldom coal mines descend to a depth of 2000 meters. But it is in the layers of ancient rock is filled cavities in the earth's crust. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_80057_263b5bbb_XXL.jpg


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by foreveryoung, posted 12-16-2012 1:07 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 2:46 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15490
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 141 of 194 (684208)
12-16-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 1:36 PM


Are you sure you're in the right topic?
What has any of this to do with radiocarbon dating?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 1:36 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM Percy has responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 142 of 194 (684247)
12-16-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
12-16-2012 2:46 PM


Percy
I'm trying to give you the opportunity to question the correctness of the chosen method of dating. If I have it wrong? Although I have given enough valid arguments. And the rest is up to you. And why is my experience tells me that the problem is not distorted translation. The problem is much broader. I think that I should have to prove to you that the earth is round, and the water liquid. And round it on the water liquid. And if we drip a few drops in one part of the world, there is not any assurance that at this point the water has become greater. Excess liquid and appeared just catch up on the planet. But a man asks a question, respectively. Well, where radiocarbon dating. Include the brain gentlemen. Would answer, I am a rational person. For not using all the resources capabilities of gray matter is not possible to understand the fullness of the subject. In principle, carbon dating only confuses. But we seem to only need a good translator. Otherwise, from a place we did not move.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_8005c_e9441558_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 2:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 10:37 PM morningstar2008 has responded
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2012 10:40 PM morningstar2008 has responded
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 11:51 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9321
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 143 of 194 (684270)
12-16-2012 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 9:17 PM


Re: Percy
In principle, carbon dating only confuses

The reason nobody can address your question is that we have yet to see a post containing anything we can understand that challenges a date obtained through carbon dating. Perhaps you can make an attempt to communicate the specifics of some age obtained by carbon dating that you believe to be wrong.

Let's also remember that dates obtained by carbon dating are of necessity less than 50,000 years in the past. No scientist claims carbon dating to be of any use for measuring ages greater than that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 11:06 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 144 of 194 (684271)
12-16-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 9:17 PM


Radiocarbon dating
I will try to keep this simple.

Radiocarbon dating only works for the last 50,000 years. It does not deal with peat or coal.

I have submitted about 600 radiocarbon samples, and know the technique fairly well.

If you think that it is wrong, please state your reasons in clear and simple terms and we can discuss them.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 11:21 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 145 of 194 (684277)
12-16-2012 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 10:37 PM


NoNukes
NoNukes Let's also remember that dates obtained by carbon dating are of necessity less than 50,000 years in the past. No scientist claims carbon dating to be of any use for measuring ages greater than that.

___________________________________________
I love you very well understood. And you quite rightly noted that the scheme is capable of radiocarbon measurements reflect only the young structure of the soil. I have yet to introduce the battle over heavy weapons on the grounds that its use should be more careful preparation. But even using simplified methods can be noticed that dating such a way as radiocarbon introduced hastily. And rely on its data at least as tactfully. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_8006e_9789628f_XXL.jpg


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 10:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 1:38 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 146 of 194 (684281)
12-16-2012 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 12:25 PM


Re: for RAZD -- problems with creationists use of 14C
Hi again morningstar2008, thanks

I see your efforts at providing information in english are improving, but that translation is still a problem, particularly with syntax and sentence structures. I hope it does not affect the replies you translate as much as we see on this end.

... turns all of paleontology as a whole. In any case, these ancient limestone on the planet should not meet or anything. And if carbon dating puts it later any of the periods, it already means that this method can be put into question. ...

A common claim by creationists, however further study of specific instances has always (so far) shown these claims to be false for various reasons.

Neither sandstone nor limestone are dated by 14C (radiocarbon) dating, because 14C dating only applies to organic matter, and it is only good for samples that are less than 50,000 years old (resolution becomes too small at that point). Any organic sample older than 50,000 years can only be dated as "older than 50,000 years" ... which covers a lot of ground while saying little.

Sandstone contains no organic matter. Limestone/chalk contains to organic matter. Thus 14C dating cannot be used ... properly (anyone trying to will get false data) ... to date these materials.

Coal is substantially older than 50,000 years, and attempts to properly date it with 14C invariably show resolution too small to accurately date as anything more than "older than 50,000 years" ...

... except where the coal has been contaminated by the presence of uranium or other radioactive material, causing the new formation of 14C via secondary radiation effects. This happens in nuclear reactors, and is a known, documented, effect of uranium\radiation on 14C production, and certain creationists take advantage of this to create a false impression of 14C dating by intentionally using contaminated samples. That this kind of contamination is documented and available to the general public such that unscrupulous people can appear to create false data is part of the process of science in determining and controlling sources of error.

For instance, I can refer to documentation of upwelling currents in the antarctic and the 14C reservoir effect on their dates, and tell you where you can take a sample of a living seal or clams and send it for 14C dating and get an apparent age of several thousand years -- because that is the age of the carbon being taken up via the food chain from the upwelling current.

Not surprisingly, creationists have done this, and then published it so that gullible people think 14C dating is erratic or false, when in fact the data can be corrected by the known reservoir effect (a simple process) to accurately reflect modern dates.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Х Х Х Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) Х Х Х

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 12:25 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 147 of 194 (684282)
12-16-2012 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coyote
12-16-2012 10:40 PM


Coyote
Coyote I will try to keep this simple.
Radiocarbon dating only works for the last 50,000 years. It does not deal with peat or coal.
I have submitted about 600 radiocarbon samples, and know the technique fairly well.
If you think that it is wrong, please state your reasons in clear and simple terms and we can discuss them.
__________________________________________
Please!
Promote your thesis.
But I assure you only look at it as rejected needle trust can say all of this is integral hastily erected technique leaves you a chance to look at other options. And believe me it's true. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_8006f_cb87f24f_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2012 10:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15490
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 148 of 194 (684288)
12-16-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 9:17 PM


This Thread is About Creationist Problems with Radiocarbon Dating
Hi MorningStar,

You don't need to put people's names in the message title. At the top and bottom of each message is a line stating who it is a reply to.

What you do need to do is clearly state the problems you think exist with radiocarbon dating. Google Translate does an excellent job of translation on technical articles from Russian to English. If you can clearly state your position in Russian then Google Translate will translate it into clear English.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 149 of 194 (684297)
12-17-2012 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
12-16-2012 11:51 PM


Re: This Thread is About Creationist Problems with Radiocarbon Dating
You say that Google Translate provides quality translation. But I do that this is why you do not notice. It is in our Russian saying to him talk and let him baptized. And that is typical to my arguments have not yet issued any either positive or negative verdict. And again I want to ask the old sores Global cracks are able to reduce the level of the oceans rather logical version of what would have to start checking more on the strength of this version? You can believe me that while we will not have an adequate understanding of the Earth's crust takes considerable reserves of water in it crack and we will not be able to reverse radiocarbon studies. They are not able to give accurate information on either the right or the left. The only reliable data can only account for the age-old rings, as is done in the calculation of a timber. Also, I maybe suppressed while other effective methods, but these methods will be effective only after the adoption of my first program of action.
But I saw one sign that prevents you from moving forward in time. He bound with chains as your movements. Are you addicted to the idea of how to behave But creationists cancel this ill-fated carbon dating? Personally, I'm not serious when the audience did not take this. Theirs God has forbidden them to do all kinds of scientific thinking. Only what is written in the Bible and not something more. So in the light of the kingdom of light will not come 2,000 years. But rather to a new Advent. Our Russia in the conduct of our homegrown scientists can also be painting a portrait of the biblical kingdom. In their pockets ponapehano not one book of quotations. And they behave like creationists look into their "bible" and live only according to these laws. And in your community I've noticed is merely an ideological race. Whose language is more eloquent. Blast off on their talk and you'll be all right.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_80071_85f9d0f5_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 11:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:46 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9321
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 150 of 194 (684302)
12-17-2012 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 11:06 PM


Re: NoNukes
I yield.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 11:06 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:45 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 43
From: ≈катеринбург
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 151 of 194 (684303)
12-17-2012 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
12-16-2012 11:19 PM


Re: for RAZD -- problems with creationists use of 14C
RAZD I think you got carried away a little over this theory. And it basically swallowed up your mind. And I suppose. This absorption can be compared to the likeness of religion is integral to all the faithful believer. Take a break for a while. Just read my posts. You absolutely do not read what I'm trying to prove. I do not know whether to paint all in minute detail what your method is wrong .. I did not want and do not intend to copy kreotsionistov. They have their own. And if you put it on the scales or you kreotsionisty far this topic has not come. Already since the flood.
And for the future. I just do not know what the arguments made in particular lead to your delusions. Sorry for the tautology.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_80072_8c0298c6_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 11:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:52 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017