|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If we check the non-creationist sources quoted by the article we see the usual misrepresentation
quote: 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: Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation
quote:(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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Today I received an email from someone who is almost certainly "John Folten" et al.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: Oh, so it's just a coincidence that the author made the same stupid mistakes that you make ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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,
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024