|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
TC, you are apparently pulling these items out of the papers cited in message 6. Do you have online links to these? I would like to see those items in the context of the papers.
Also, please see this, if you havn't already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html Moose Edit: Deleted previous edit------------------ BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-28-2002] [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC, you are apparently pulling these items out of the papers cited in message 6. Do you have online links to these? I would like to see those items in the context of the papers."
The article was mine, more like a commentary of some sort, as I had little of my own text which I did not include with this quote from AiG which I cannot seem to be able to connect to right now, copy and past a peice of this quote into the AiG search and you should find the place I copied it from. Ofcourse this does not demean the relevance.
quote: "Also, please see this, if you havn't already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html --Ofcourse, Its probley one of only 2 papers that I get a link towards Radiometric dating in these forums. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: (Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar.
quote: Unless there has been contamination.
quote: Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something.
quote: Never mind.
quote: Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14.
quote: No. I mean more appropriate.
quote: For different ages and materials, yes.
quote: Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number.
quote: As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date.
quote: For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal. Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?
quote: Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today.
quote: Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon.
quote: Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud.
quote: Again, do you have a specific example? I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility. Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?
quote: Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable.
quote: Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?
quote: But your integrity has been questioned! Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment? (Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.) The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous. And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know.
quote: Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering...
quote: The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!
quote: Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again.
quote: This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it.
quote: Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question. [This message has been edited by edge, 01-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Like I have said before, Brad, I don't have a flipping clue what the heck you are trying to say.
Like, why on earth bring up nanotechnology, the Pope, or New Orleans? Either get off the drugs or get back on your meds, man!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Schraf,
If I may add another, I've posted this three times to three different people & never got an answer. Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when: 1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum. 2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved. There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
You and I and every one else that got information from an IVY LEAGUE source were informed that the magnitude need only be added with/to by diaelectrics and permiability (this was also the same osmosis experiment in high school REPEATED in college). I respect your interest in wishing to not have my comments but the Pope aside I believe this has to do with rights extant from the ammendments specifically as to the difference in uniform association and not inhibited powers of the people. Feel free to put that sentence in the hotest linguistc analyser you got. The more you and others try to use the difference of kinematics and statics against me the more the Federal GOv gets dynamics (in this internet thing) to make the case (that word is really not in English in my understanding). We have all suffered a time in scinece when chemistry was thought to heal but insofar as I need and never did any "meds" I got it back by reading the Bible. The last post was attempt to give you what Cornell never got from me as part of an approved independent study to get and give a "take-home" lesson from the work of Croizat. I thought I did a good job. Many reject Croizat for the method he took to inform others. Sooner than later I will be speaking only interms of symbols and it will get even more difficult to understand me. Meanwhile I will be beginning some critiques of Carl Zimmer's Natrual History Articles so perhaps just jump the skip wire and wait for these for even profesional evolutionists will find the time and interest to be in the reading of those. I wish this rumor about me had never got started but at least I know that Carl did not start it. The work is simply to show where Galelio's quotient was mistaken for some difference in current science. You could do this too for I do not assume you are not a professional evolutionist or the equivalent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Marry, this well carried shall on her behalf Change slander to remorse; that is some good: But not for that dream I on this strange course, But on this travail look for greater birth. She dying, as it must so be maintain'd, Upon the instant that she was accused, Shall be lamented, pitied and excused Of every hearer: for it so falls out That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, Why, then we rack the value, then we find The virtue that possession would not show us Whiles it was ours. So will it fare with Claudio: When he shall hear she died upon his words, The idea of her life shall sweetly creep Into his study of imagination, And every lovely organ of her life Shall come apparell'd in more precious habit, More moving-delicate and full of life, Into the eye and prospect of his soul, Than when she lived indeed; then shall he mourn, If ever love had interest in his liver, And wish he had not so accused her, No, though he thought his accusation true. Let this be so, and doubt not but success Will fashion the event in better shape Than I can lay it down in likelihood. But if all aim but this be levell'd false, The supposition of the lady's death Will quench the wonder of her infamy: And if it sort not well, you may conceal her, As best befits her wounded reputation, In some reclusive and religious life, Out of all eyes, tongues, minds and injuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thank you very much for the reply. You have voted one way or the other and I applaud that. SO i would like to put out as I have on others boards when this point was reached my offer for my less slanted position videos in which I attempt to allow the caller to choose sides. That is all anyone can ask. So I have 21/2 hours plus another hour walk through of my gradfathers museum of natural history in Fredonia NY that I will send free is you e-mail me a snail mail address at bsmcfall@hotmail.com and I am in the phone book. This is an offer for any one interested in creation and evolution 11/2 hours were live call ins and I did get calls that I had to respond to on air and I read a letter I had recieved from HM MOrris. If you would like this material for VCRS anywhere drop me a line. I am even less venomous than Croizat's scorpian. Brad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
That was scary I thought you had contracted Brads condition for a minute. then I realised it sounded suspiciously like Shakespeare, is it Measure for measure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar."
--My point is, that if your going to date something that is 100 million years old, and you happen to find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes still 'decaying' in your sample, then the calender is drastically and utterly flawed. "Unless there has been contamination."--I might understand contamination giving you less quantities of carbon, but not more, how will you contaminate with new radioactive C14? "Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something."--I already gave you one, 15,000 different samples. "Never mind."--Okedoky. "Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14."--What are you talking about? The Half life of radioactive elements,eg. C14, is the method of decay rate. They measured it in a laboratory for about 3 days and the Half life of C14 is about 5730 years, so dinosaur bones must contain an infinite age, unmeasurable quantities of radioisotopes, meaning there is a problem if you find this. "No. I mean more appropriate."--If you can sufficiently explain to me why there there are more appropriate dating methods that can't be falsified, I will drop my argument. "For different ages and materials, yes."--So the stuff we find that is millions of years old can't be any older than 50,000 years? "Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number."--Then why do we not find this? "As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date. "--So even though we find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes in your sample, this method of dating, is logially inaccurate, because the dates contredict greatly. "For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal."--Please excuse me, but then you must also explain coals likewize outrageous dates. "Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?"--I should hope anyone does, It would be hard to find coal bed deposits in igneous rock, being of magmatic origin. "Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today. "--Why should I if it makes no relevance to the discussion, I know that whether they lived millions or billions of years ago that there are organisms still living in the same state as they were in that time, whether deposited in the flood or the billions of years. Your problem is that we can get dates from radiocarbon in these samples. "Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon."--Obviously, the problem is we can date these by Carbon14 analysis, as there should be none or unmeasurable quantities still existing there. "Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud."--What are you talking about? The problem is that the Old rocks seem to be getting the young dates by C14 'dating'. I have yet to hear an explination. ------Finish post later today, Don't give a response yet plz--------------You werent suppost to reply yet! Oh Well ----Added By edit---- "Again, do you have a specific example?"--I gave you one, 15,000 dates that are suppost to be in the millions dated by C14. "I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility."--For one, there is more than one coal deposit, so you must do this to all of them, second, how are you going to contaminate a deposit with new C14, I can see how you would get rid of it possibly, but adding C14? Mind you, this is also a radical assumption involved in every Radiometric dating technique, as you yourself admitted to just now. "Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?"--If your going to rely on the thought of contamination for all of these samples, then it is logical to drop C14 dating, because it seems to happen, in deep sediments on the ocean floor, coal, natural gas, etc. How is it irrelevant that C14 is still present in 100+ million year old sediments? This is fundemental, and is evidence that either all the Dating methods are inaccurate, atleast C14 is totally and utterly wrong, and/or you must admit that the various radioisotope dating methods are consistant with one another. "Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable."--Then rebuke the 15,000 dates, as you would need to do, they are extreamly unconsistant with the other dates proposed by even its own dating method. "Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?"--How easy? "But your integrity has been questioned!"--How so? I am simply admitting that science changes theories, If you can't accept this, you have no place in the discussion of theoretical applications in scientific inquireys, as is obvious. "Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment?"--No more than to go out and reproduce any other experiment ever done in the history of the scientific community. "(Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.)"--You are eons from the point, and direct false implications of what I said towards creationists, as opposed to scientists. Whats to oppose, there is no difference from a creation scientist and a scientist, there is a difference from an evolutionist and a creationist. "The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous."--Who said it was irreducable? Evolutionist just grab their bellys, give a good chuckle and ignore it, as far as I have seen. "And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know."--Just to let you know, there are multiple reproductions, it is just not going on as frequently as they would be looking elsewhere for other things to debunk or point towards their theory. "Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering..."--...Flowering plants are angiosperms, you don't have to be a biological professor to know that, please forgive me if the use of 'flowering plant' was not up to your standard, I will use angiosperm as opposed to your gymnosperms, and yes there arent just gymnosperms in there. "The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!"--Excuse me? 'It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it' You accept that there are pollen grains in there but do not think that it makes relevance? "Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again."--I have, with the present information, I can't come to any other conclusion! "This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it."--You attempted to make your assertion of my geologic resources were various internet sites, thus making me seem like I don't know what i am talking about, which is untrue, Earlier this year I had no more geologic knowledge than the average high schooler, though for a month or so, I have stuck my face in many books on geology and marine geology and various smaller books. --Though the odd thing is, that even if those were my only resources, so far, I would be doing great in this topic, as I have not needed to stick my face in any information besides a geologic time line to know the dating of the carboniferous stratum! "Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question."--Im not sure if you have done lab work in radiometric dating techniques, but I havent, I freely admit, but why would I need to, as I have already presented valid information for you to comment on, and I have not yet received one that is substantially relevant to the discussion or of missunderstanding of the point. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar.
quote: So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important.
quote: I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date.
quote: Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones. If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates. I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported.
quote: I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable. Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one.
quote: If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates. It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?
quote: Make that an unmeasureably LOW number. First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method.
quote: But we don't, unless there has been contamination.
quote: Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?
quote: Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples.
quote: I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists.
quote: Most likely it is contamination.
quote: Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TC,
I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT. Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in total Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating. Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar."
--Your still missing or ignoring the point. You still have measurable C14 and the measurable quantity of radioisotopes, thus giving your date, contredicts K-Ar. "So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important."--This is not how you get C14 in your organism, C14 can only be present when it is contracted from the organism eating plant life, or eating something that ate plant life, when its dead, neither is it eating, or is it breathing. "I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date."--I have a problem with all 15,000 of those dates, why would they give such dates to multi million year old stratum and its consealents. "Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones."--Then why are we finding any C14 existing in them at all? "If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates."--Which is my point, your not getting your infinite dates. "I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported."--Not just dinosaur bones, but I just gave you 15,000 and their results, not their direct results but their porportional summary. "I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable."--Exactly your problem, it is measurable. "Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one."--I am aware of many, C14 just being the most knowledgable, I believe 7 or so, they don't seem to be consistant with C14 do they? "If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates."--So they arent consistant. "It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?"--You can't measure lava flows with K-Ar with my knowledge on the subject, I know you know why. I know enough about radiometric dating to make this argument feasable. "Make that an unmeasureably LOW number."--Unmeasurably low quantity of radioisotopes, yes. "First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method."--So then why do you continually say that the dating methods are consistant when they do not give consistant dates. "But we don't, unless there has been contamination."--Relying on the arument of contamination is greatly flawed, and no, not all 15,000 of those dates are flawed by contamination. "Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?"--I think I know what your trying to say, but I think something I am not understanding from your grammer usage. "coal gas"? "Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples."--I just gave you an sample, or should I say example, 15,000 of them, with only 3 infinite dates, ie, unmeasurable). "I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists."--I just gave you 15,000 of them. "Most likely it is contamination."--Really, if you don't assume it was contamination, then your whole theory as a whole, or your various 'dating' methods are stuck in a rut. "Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?"--Yes I am well aware that there are many, as I have addressed through the forums numerous times before, I am showing you why C14 is either inconsistant with all the other dating methods, or they all are contredicting. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT."
--Then we must maintain an explination why we find that these quickly decaying radioisotopes are still in measurable quantities when they should have 'decayed' millions of years ago. "Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in total"--I am well aware. "Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating."--Then why does it still exist in rocks many times older than 50,000 years, and in measurable quantities? "Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older."--What is the mechenism for C14 contamination to a non-living organism? ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024