Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 9:07 AM
387 online now:
Faith, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss, RAZD (7 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,406 Year: 21,012/21,208 Month: 1,445/2,326 Week: 781/345 Day: 19/124 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(2)
Message 181 of 221 (529672)
10-10-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
I would have complimented you for the relative clarity of this post, Calypsis, except you didn't actually write the parts that are relatively clear. (The pictures are, as usual, inadequately documented, grossly misinterpreted, and basically irrelevant -- you would have done better to use that space in trying to paraphrase your own understanding of Baumgardner's text.)

Of course, clarity and correctness are two completely different things. Certainly there is an essential relation between these things: lack of clarity really gets in the way of judging correctness, but presence of clarity is no guarantee of correctness.

Anyway, in order to get a valid sense of Baumgardner's expertise on radiocarbon dating, you do need to consult sources other than Baumgardner, RATE, and creationist web sites and literature.

Substantive information on RATE and Baumgardner can be found in previous posts on this thread: Message 151, Message 158 and Message 15. (I got that easily by searching for the name on each of the 11 previous pages in this thread.) A little more time with Google would lead you to more detailed discussions elsewhere. Of the ones I browsed in the last hour or so, the one I found most informative is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html -- you can also find EvC threads and other sources that go on at length about other stuff mentioned in your lengthy quote: helium in zircon, polonium halos, etc.

But apart from trying to do a better job of understanding the scientific method and the available evidence, you could also try just a little more in the area of thinking things through. For example, given this assertion in your lengthy quote:

quote:
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.

... 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.


Apart from the "few samples" and "rough estimates" (in contrast to the large quantities of samples, and the much more careful estimates with measurable and much smaller margins of error, all of which contradict RATE's conclusions), the problem here is with the inescapable notion of "geological layers" being acknowledged in the same argument that appeals to a "cataclysm", which throughout YEC literature is defined very poorly or not at all with regard to the actual processes involved.

How is it that cataclysm results in an arrangement of materials into well-ordered layers? Why do we not find a general, world-wide geological "hash"? How can it be that fossils managed to sort themselves out so distinctly among these layers, within the span of a one-year cataclysm? Why are some life forms, such as dinosaurs, found only as fossils, and never as actual bones? We do have bones (not fossils) from creatures (including humans) that lived 5 or 6 thousand years ago ("antediluvian"), but no dinosaur bones -- only fossils.

I could go on... There are just so many simple, plain, obvious, "no-brainer" observations about the world that just cannot be reconciled with the YEC world view. It's a sadly endless source of astonishment that YEC's are so adamant about rejecting reality for the sake of asserting "historical truth" for this one written record of some stories that really amount to nothing more than "tales told around the campfire" a few thousand years ago.

If you personally want to believe in magical explanations for everything around you, based on a serious misinterpretation of ancient scripture, that's your choice. If you insist on asserting such beliefs as facts to the public at large, it won't work. The errors and untruths in such assertions are just too blatant.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 11:29 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2009 8:09 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply
 Message 183 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 10:33 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8790
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 182 of 221 (529718)
10-10-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Otto Tellick
10-10-2009 3:24 AM


Topic
Otto, the topic here is NOT the flood and sorting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-10-2009 3:24 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 183 of 221 (529745)
10-10-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Otto Tellick
10-10-2009 3:24 AM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Anyway, in order to get a valid sense of Baumgardner's expertise on radiocarbon dating, you do need to consult sources other than Baumgardner, RATE, and creationist web sites and literature.

That is total hogwash. You just lost your credibility with me, mister.

I've been in the ball game a long time and I pretty much know who does and does not have credibility.

What Baumgardner said was right on target. The evidence supports it.

Say, before I leave this section of EvC for other areas, let me suggest that since you and your skeptic comrades like to play with reality, then the next time you find yourself extremely uncomfortable on real hot day, then just take your thermometer and paint new degrees on it. Change the calibration from 99 F to 68 F. That way you can feel nice and cool on even a very warm day. Neat!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-10-2009 3:24 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2009 10:53 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 185 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 11:02 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(1)
Message 184 of 221 (529749)
10-10-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Calypsis4
10-10-2009 10:33 AM


Topic
Your pictures have nothing to do with the topic.

You comments do nothing to advance your views.

Focus and actually discuss the available evidence.

You should, if you think you have an argument to make, head over to the
Age Correlations and an Old Earth thread Message 1

C14 is included there and you can explain the evidence given.

You have not shown how

What Baumgardner said was right on target. The evidence supports it.
By now you should know that simply saying something over and over doesn't mean a thing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 10:33 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 11:02 AM AdminNosy has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 185 of 221 (529754)
10-10-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Calypsis4
10-10-2009 10:33 AM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Since you are fond of Baumgardner and the RATE project here is a review of that work:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

Key points from the article:

quote:
The key points of the book can be summarized as follows:
1. There is overwhelming evidence of more than 500 million years worth of radioactive decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have been accelerated by approximately a factor of one billion during the first three days of creation and during the Flood.
4. The concept of accelerated decay leads to two unresolved scientific problems, the heat problem and the radiation problem, though there is confidence that these will be solved in the future.
5. Therefore, the RATE project provides encouragement regarding the reliability of the Bible.

quote:
The authors report that faced with this evidence, a young-earth advocate must address at least two key scientific problems resulting from a one-year period of accelerated decay rates during the Flood. The first is the heat problem. Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat had there not been an extraordinary mechanism of cooling. The authors state:

The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation … We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763).

Future research is suggested along the lines of Russell Humphreys’ idea of volumetric cooling based on relativistic principles even though this known phenomenon, the basis for red-shifting of starlight, does not apply to bound particles such as the earth. It is acknowledged that this approach, even if it were valid, has the difficulty of being uniform rather than selective as would be needed to cool only radioactive material and not, for example, the oceans. In other words, the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics. The second unresolved problem cited in the book is the radiation problem. How did Noah and his passengers survive a year in which radioactivity was one million times greater than it is today? No known solution exists, they state. Nevertheless, “The RATE group is confident that these issues will be solved …”


quote:
The leap to the conclusion is never made clear. Confidence in a future resolution of extraordinary scientific contradiction moves smoothly to a message “to Christians in general to encourage them regarding the reliability of the Bible” (p. 768). In other words, the expectation of a future solution to a major scientific impasse is being translated into conferences, books, and videos proclaiming the good news that the RATE project has demonstrated the scientific validity of a young earth.

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.


This is an example of Baumgardner's research. What the RATE project did is confirm what scientists have been saying all along, but Baumgardner et al. wouldn't even accept that when it was shown by their own evidence!

And in addition to showing that radiocarbon dating is accurate they also showed the global flood couldn't have happened as written. Of course they wouldn't believe that either, even though that is a logical conclusion from the RATE project's research.

And you want to use Baumgardner as a credible source? What a joke!

If you want to cast some doubt on radiocarbon dating you will have to try again. And stick to one point--the Gish gallop might play well before a creationist audience but here it just makes you look desperate.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 10:33 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 186 of 221 (529755)
10-10-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by AdminNosy
10-10-2009 10:53 AM


Re: Topic
Your pictures have nothing to do with the topic.
You comments do nothing to advance your views.

Focus and actually discuss the available evidence

I've been looking for you, mister. You sorry rascal.

Last night you said,

This is also a warning to those who might want to discuss this with you. They are probably wasting their time.

So you took a subject (Moons, eclipses, and timing) concerning the absolute perfect timing of the most important event in the history of mankind and treated it like trash, never mind the solid evidence that I offered for it. I can even give more. Then you tucked it away in a category that is little read instead of placing it with the related subject I posted on moons because you just arbitrarily decided that it wasn't important enough.

So ban me. It will be a blessing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2009 10:53 AM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2009 11:07 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(1)
Message 187 of 221 (529757)
10-10-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Calypsis4
10-10-2009 11:02 AM


Better things to do
Another contentless, off topic post.

You would do better to address Re: C14 dating goes here (Message 185)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Calypsis4, posted 10-10-2009 11:02 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 1311 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 188 of 221 (529920)
10-11-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: C14 dating goes here
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.

Even assuming a flood and a sequestering of biomas by the same, which I do not, none of this would affect the ratio C14/C12, so ages based on this ratio would be unaffected.

Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2009 9:10 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded
 Message 192 by edge, posted 10-11-2009 12:17 PM MarkAustin has not yet responded
 Message 193 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-22-2009 12:23 PM MarkAustin has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3505
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 189 of 221 (529952)
10-11-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by MarkAustin
10-11-2009 5:08 AM


Are isotopes chemically indifferable
Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.

I'm pretty sure this is not so. Which is why, for example, oxygen isotope ratios vary over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by MarkAustin, posted 10-11-2009 5:08 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coragyps, posted 10-11-2009 10:20 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5277
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 190 of 221 (529962)
10-11-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Jack
10-11-2009 9:10 AM


Re: Are isotopes chemically indifferable
You are correct, Mr. Jack - heavier isotopes do react more slowly in most situations, purely because they're "fatter" and have more inertia. Like me now and me at twenty. The Manhattan Project's biggest challenge was building those huge diffusion cells to seperate uranium-235 for bombs from the main isotope, U-238. The effects are pretty small in nature with, say, carbon 12 and 13, but they're measurable.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2009 9:10 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2009 12:15 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 191 of 221 (529973)
10-11-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coragyps
10-11-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Are isotopes chemically indifferable
The effects are pretty small in nature with, say, carbon 12 and 13, but they're measurable.

Correct. This is called fractionation.

There is a good essay on this as applied to radiocarbon dating at this site:

http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html

One tidbit:

Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio. If isotopic fractionation occurs in natural processes, a correction can be made by measuring the ratio of the isotope 13C to the isotope 12C in the sample being dated. The ratio is measured using an ordinary mass spectrometer.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coragyps, posted 10-11-2009 10:20 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 192 of 221 (529974)
10-11-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by MarkAustin
10-11-2009 5:08 AM


Re: C14 dating goes here
Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.

Heh...

In that case, we're wasting our time worrying about an Iranian nuke...

I'll give Obama a call tonight and let him know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by MarkAustin, posted 10-11-2009 5:08 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

  
PurpleYouko
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


(1)
Message 193 of 221 (532274)
10-22-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by MarkAustin
10-11-2009 5:08 AM


Re: C14 dating goes here
quote:
Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.

Crap!!

Do you mean I've just wasted the last 20 years of my life designing and operating mass spectrometers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by MarkAustin, posted 10-11-2009 5:08 AM MarkAustin has not yet responded

  
DEBRA 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2696 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-02-2010


Message 194 of 221 (541276)
01-02-2010 5:00 AM


Well you can date in-situ rocks relative to others by a few basic principles such as fossil evidence and sequence stratigraphy (if one rock is 'cut' by another then the it is older).
If you have an entire sequence of rocks right up to the present time the you could use deposition rates to calculate age but I wouldn't rely on it.

Edited by Admin, : Remove sig.


    
sailorstide
Junior Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 18
From: Los Angeles,California,USA
Joined: 04-30-2006


Message 195 of 221 (541283)
01-02-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


The Missing Link Returns
I was inactive for some time since I The Missing Link Topicteer was involved in the usual day to day routine of life and now I'm back for further discussion on the original topic of Carbon Dating and as to it's authenticity. I am now listed as the member name of sailorstide and have referance here for all who did participate in the disscussions of the Missing Link.

It's quite a ? as to the world of science which pits itself as to the world of religious beliefs. Surely even a novice of intellectual thought can base an opinion and be heard. Some say that the so-called missing link has been discovered which creates a bond from the past to the present for all the human family and that this is it no ?'s asked and some say that the missink link has not been discovered yet and that it never will. Radioactive carbon dating is not and never will be an exact science due to several facts and those facts are these: The sun that gives all life on this planet has never through the history of it ever been a limited and or unlimited solar flare projector. The sun has allways emitted random solar flare. Solar flare science is maybe at best 50 yrs oldand no knowlege of solar flare activity was recorded and or in evidence past this time. Through the 100's of millions of this worlds solar" flarily", if you will, there has been differances of activity so for any scientist to make a general definate claim on a constant solar flare normality is a bad tree barker to say the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 01-02-2010 8:21 AM sailorstide has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 01-02-2010 9:18 AM sailorstide has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017