Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 308 (339129)
08-11-2006 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


If we check the non-creationist sources quoted by the article we see the usual misrepresentation
quote:
Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.
If we follow the link to check what t he article actually says it states that the bones dated were "animal bones" - and that there is "no clear-cut relation between these bones and the skull of Homo rhodesienus"
A clear case of misrepresentation.
quote:
In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to t he Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These
were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)
Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation
quote:
The new dates on the human bones do not call into question the age of the archaeological material (which was previously radiocarbon-dated to the Aurignacian period), Smith says. He, Conard and third author Peter Grootes thus conc luded that Neolithic humans unknowingly buried their dead near the entrances to Vogelherd Cave amidst relics of times long gone, and that is why Riek found the bones stratigraphically located next to older artifacts.
(emphasis mine)
So we find t hat it is only the bones which have been redated - and that carbon dating CONFIRMED the age of the artifacts.
And this is just silly
quote:
If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years
The carbon dating databases will ONLY include items that have been carbon dated. Most fossils are k nown to be too old to be usefully carbon dated and so the process will simply not be applied to them. Thus the claim must be false since we will not have carbon dates for anything more than a small proportion of fossils - and that biased towards those th ought to be young enough to give a useful date.
u
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 8:47 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 10 of 308 (339156)
08-11-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
08-11-2006 8:51 AM


Cold Fusion ?
Please present evidence that the proposed mechanism for generating C14 within the Earth is "Cold Fusion" as the term is used in the reports you cite.
Because quite frankly I think you're engaged in the usual YEC technique of inventing false accusations in order to dismiss the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 8:51 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 10:51 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 16 of 308 (339175)
08-11-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
08-11-2006 10:51 AM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth.
I therefore conclude that your claim is a complete fabrication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 10:51 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 9:09 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2008 2:18 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 30 of 308 (339487)
08-12-2006 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by johnfolton
08-11-2006 9:09 PM


Re: Cold Fusion
Yes, we know all that.
So how is the fact that Cold Fusion experiments have failed related to production of C14 in the ground ? There's no connection between the two that I know of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 9:09 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 43 of 308 (339616)
08-12-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
08-12-2006 2:28 PM


Re: the usual idiocy from some evos
The simple fact is that the source you quoted misrepresented their sources as I documented. Pointing out such misrepresentations is a substantive criticism and not a personal attack.
The issue of cold fusion was not raised by evolutionists - and it is a complete red herring. Nobody has shown that it has any relevance to the actual topic, for the simple reason that it does not.
And finally I note that you raise no substantive points at all - certainly no answer to the points that have been raised against the OP
Any truly neutral reader can see that the creationists have, yet again, been caught misrepresenting the facts - and that you have no answer beyond insult and denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 08-12-2006 2:28 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 58 of 308 (339916)
08-14-2006 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by johnfolton
08-13-2006 10:14 PM


SO what about Cold Fusion
No, you still have to deal with other sources of C14 such as the C14 generated in the ground, which you tied to dismiss by onvoking Cold Fusion. You still have given no reason to think that Cold Fusion (which is all about fusing hydrogen atoms) is relevant.r

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 08-13-2006 10:14 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by johnfolton, posted 08-14-2006 9:45 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 62 of 308 (339974)
08-14-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by johnfolton
08-14-2006 9:45 AM


RE Cold Fusion
No, the creationists are NOT using science.
If they were using science they would refer directly to the mechanism involved and make specific points about that.
Instead we get assertions about Cold Fusion - attempts to fuse hydrogen atoms via electrolysis. And you haven't shown any reason why that has any relevance at all. So the fact is that you are not using science (abusing it, perhaps) because you quite literally do not know what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by johnfolton, posted 08-14-2006 9:45 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 215 of 308 (476281)
07-22-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
08-11-2006 11:13 AM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
Today I received an email from someone who is almost certainly "John Folten" et al.
quote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
"I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion
is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth.
I therefore conclude that your claim is a complete fabrication."
Sir, the above quotation is something I cut & pasted directly from one
of your replies to a question regarding C14, obviously. It was a long
time ago, but nonetheless. You do realize that the general concensus on
the DOE's stand is that they accept the Coulomb barrier evidence to be
true on the status of C14. So, maybe the DOE should be asked why they
are harboring creationist data.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Of course this simply repeats the same stupid error found in Message 23 and answered in Message 30
Mark, John, Bret Charley, or Whatever your name is, it doesn't matter how many people you can produce who say that Cold Fusion ISN'T responsible for the trace amounts of C14. We all know that it isn't.
What you need to produce is one person who claims that Cold Fusion IS responsible for C14. To prove that you're not just attacking a strawman of your own invention.
But thanks for letting us know that the DoE does NOT support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 11:13 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by johnfolton, posted 07-24-2008 3:13 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 218 of 308 (476484)
07-24-2008 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by johnfolton
07-24-2008 3:13 AM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
quote:
Glad to see no one claims C14 being generated within the earth.
Of course you know that people do claim that. They just don't claim that it is due to Cold Fusion. You made that up.
quote:
Sorry,
Not I:
Oh, so it's just a coincidence that the author made the same stupid mistakes that you make ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by johnfolton, posted 07-24-2008 3:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 225 of 308 (476523)
07-24-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by johnfolton
07-24-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Reference(s) please
The only similar study I have found was the one found by Dr Adequate and the 9400 years refers to the oldest sub-fossil wood collected by that particular survey.
Another study into pollen samples deals with considerably older material - and shows no sign of a tropical climate.
So far we have no evidence that there is any study saying what you claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by johnfolton, posted 07-24-2008 1:10 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 303 of 308 (476842)
07-27-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 10:48 PM


Re: Thanks Randman
quote:
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.
No, I didn't. Randman's source cites both pages. Here's the relevant para. from Message 1 with the references in bold to make it even more obvious.
Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000) This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood. In that same article, the authors wrote, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen (organic carbon in bone) may be altered to yield a false age." (Science Vol 144, pg 999)
In my Message 4 I correctly quoted the 2nd and 3rd sentences which contain the reference to page 1000. Page 1000 is where the cited statement occurs (and page 1000 is where I found the information omitted by the source Randman was quoting).
Thus your accusation of "blatant dishonesty" is itself blatantly dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:48 PM ReformedRob has not replied

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


Message 307 of 308 (476861)
07-27-2008 1:26 PM


Summary
The "peaceharris" page was shown to have misrepresented its sources on two claims - the only claims based directly on non-creationist sources. The final claim about "90% of fossils" is odd enough taken at face value - and odder still when we look at the page it links to - the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database. If "fossil" really means "sample" (since it is entirely likely that none of the samples are fossils) how could it be significant ? There's no real attempt to explain.
The other page cites Creationist claims that dinosaur remains have been carbon dated to give dates - mostly well in excess of the 10,000 years that would be the maximum expected in a YEC scenario. These are more likely the result of contamination rather than real ages. Any argument to the contrary must be considered in the light of the other dating evidence we have, that indicates that the remains are far older rather than simply jumping to the preferred conclusion,

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by peaceharris, posted 07-28-2008 1:51 AM PaulK 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