An honest question for creos regarding dates and dating

You second that notion? Then why was it that when I brought up about dating techniques for the chariot wheels I was sent here? Now that I'm here, I'm being told it's off topic. So no matter which thread I post it at, to you "carbon dating and the Exodus have to remain separate". When we are speaking of carbon dating methods in regard to the Exodus, you cannot separate the topics. That is why you should have let me continue talking about carbon dating back in the Exodus Myth thread.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

You second that notion? Then why was it that when I brought up about dating techniques for the chariot wheels I was sent here? Now that I'm here, I'm being told it's off topic.

---

Talking about the dating techniques and possible sample contamination are fine and on topic. However, when things start to drift away from these topics it needs to be moved to the Exodus thread. Just a few examples from this thread that are off topic:"jar,, how have I not proven that there are wheels? We not only have the photographs, but we have a whole slew of divers that testify to their existance. Jonothan Gray filmed them (I saw his video, and the wheels), Viveka Ponten filmed them (I saw her video and saw the wheels), Ron Wyatt filmed them (I saw his video and saw the wheels), and Moller filmed many strange wheel-like coral encrusted objects, and I saw them. ""Have you personally seen the Wyatt footage? The Vivika Ponten footage? The Jonothan Gray footage? I bet the only thing you saw was from the Exodus Revealed Video. If I were you, I'd dig deeper than that."I would prefer that these arguments stay in the Exodus thread since it has been so active. I don't want to see the non-Exodus material in this thread buried. Again, I am not an admin, this is a friendly suggestion.

Do you understand now, Lysimachus?

What am I supposed to do if jar brings up something that I can't refrain from addressing? Let him bathe in his fallacies? Because if I respond, all of a sudden it's "off topic".Of course, when jar brings up something, no one corrects him and tells him he's off topic. Afterall, he was the first one to say "there is no proof there are even wheels".That's right...I should have known there weren't any creationist admins on this board.You guys understand my point now?This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 09-03-2004 07:27 PM

---

~Lysimachus

To try to make things easier here are links to the posts in question. Message 70
Message 71
Message 73
Message 74
Message 77
Message 79
Message 82
Message 83
Message 84
Message 85
Message 86
Message 87
Message 88

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lysimachus first post here:
post 70
Bring in the 3,000 (or so) year limit of "100%" reliability.
Also "as we know that salt water--after an extended amount of time--leeches out the carbon 14 molecules. "jar post 71 points out error in "100%" comment alos goes off topic by mentioning "no data for wheels " (something of a throw away line)72 edge comment on variably accuracy73 Lysimachus -- long rant on nothing to do with the topic
then corrects "100%" statment. (good)
Then asserts " Beyond that, the data is unreliable." without any substantiation that the error goes from a small amount to something unusable within a span of a couple of 1,000 years. No error percentage given in the 3,000 (or up to 4,500) year range none after.Repeats "no one trusts it" quote. But doesn't explain the number of people who do trust it.repeat of salt water problem, adds coral and repeats 3,000 year claim. NOTE: no mention of lack of wood which makes this whole point moot and a total waste of time to discuss.74corygyps makes a comment about ICR statment about C-14 production showing them wrong but not a really main point to the discussion at this point75 RAZD makes an irrelevant comment76 RAZD supplies a note on one of the main points of this dating issues. He actually shows a method of checking and measuring error bars.77 Jar comments on your rant of post 73, not something he should have done at such length. He did point you to the right thread for that.78 loudmouth a comment on C-14 levels noting lots of back up for the method but not really a topic that contributed to the thread.79 lysimachus you respond to jar 77 with a lot of off topic stuff.
You reiterate "main point" on salt water, encrustation and age80 RAZD (off topic) response to your 7981 coryagyps (finally) asks what it is about salt water that is a problem.82 jar points out that salt water is NOT a problem83 lysimachus -- all off topic84 bingo "There IS NO WOOD TO CARBON DATE!" all that had to be done was say this in the original exodus thread. Suddenly all the salt water problem age etc is gone and forgotten.85 jar - off topic comments on this meaning no evidence. Not explaining why though86 lysimachus comments on large pieces of wood and smaller in wheels -- really just a repeat of NO WOOD.87 lysimachus carry jar off topic of 77 even though he pointed you to another thread. and the conversation had moved beyond that.88 jar commenting on "coming back to haunt you" then "Now back to the topic." he asks you about your original claims of salt water and age problem.89 LM commenting to NO ONE points out off topicness of wheels. This can be taken as directed at anyone who is off topic.90 I seconded that still not directed at anyone (actually lysimachus and jar were both my targets)91 lysimachus commenting be being blamed for being off topic.92 LM documenting only lysimachus off topic comments which based on my re read are much more voluminous than Jars but both are to blame.93 my comment to you about 92's examples of off topicness.94 your complaintThis has now become a serious off topic diversion of it's own.Jar and Lysimachus have both been tending to veer. I would judge the volume of words off topic to be very heavily Lysimachus issue and both of them tending to keep tossing it in. Both have to learn to ignore.Meanwhile note the real problem buried in that.Lysimchus has gone from salt water leaching carbon and 3,000 + years being a problem to simple there being NO WOOD.However, he has been asked to supply back up for those assertions.Since the wheels have nothing to date they are totally irrelevant to the discussion and have always been. Now we can get back to the main point of this thread.Since Lysimachus has suggested that C-14 dating is not reliable he should now back up to the reasons given for it being reliable and used frequently for dates up to the 50,000 year mark and show why they are wrong. If he can't he is invited to stay off the topic in this or other threads.

LOL...I can't believe that you, AdminNosy went through all that work posting all of that...ROFL! Silly!I didn't even read all of it.My point is only this, IN IT'S SIMPLICITY:When I state matters regarding C-14 dating in a C-14 dating thread IN RELATION to C-14 dating particular material of another "OFF TOPIC" area, and one comments not on the C-14 dating itself, but rather the "OFF TOPIC" area in RELATION to the C-14 dating, I have every right to respond to the comment if I believe it to be a fallacious one. Period.I am not going to sit here and argue with you biased admins who post off topic posts yourselves. I admit it went off topic, and I am sorry for that, but I do not think it is fair for how you jump on my back particularly and seem to be more apt to do it--especially if one does not especially exuberate warm-fuzzy to your ideas.Yes, we are specifically referring to C-14 dating in this thread, but it must be integrated with the "connecting" subject in context with the chariot wheels.If someone throws out an "off topic" comment at me, I will in turn reply if I feel there is reason to. I don't care how small it may be elaborated. My best suggest is next time to initially throw an "on topic" comment on me, then things might go a "bit" smoother.

---

~Lysimachus

Lys -
Tell me, then. If we did have any wheelish wood to carbon date in the bottom of the Red Sea, what is it that salt water would have done to it that would skew the dates? How does the salt affect carbon-14 differently from the fresh water in Lake Suigetsu, in Japan, where you can count 38000 annual layers and match them up with 14C dates? How does the salt in the Red Sea differ from the salt in the Cariaco Basin, in the Caribbean off Venezuela, where you can count 50,000 annual layers and match them up with carbon dates? Why do the dates from those two spots match within 3% or so?Tell me - it's time to do so or retract your assertion about salt and "3000 years."

Lys,I am sorry if you feel like I was picking on you. Your post held the most, but not only, off topic content so I quoted from there. Given the volume of threads in the other Exodus threads I didn't want this thread to get bogged down with non-dating issues.To address your complaints about C14 dating, Coragyps offers some important questions. Not only that, but to affect carbon dating the saltwater would have to leech out the C14 but leave the C12 intact since it is the ratio of C12/C14 that creates the age. Also, other wood artifacts have been accurately dated even though they had been in saltwater longer than your samples. Of course, since there is no wood to date the point is rather moot, wouldn't you say?

Damn, I was hoping I'd hook up with some chicks in the "dates and dating" forum. Apparently I had the wrong idea...

My spidy sense tells me AM is coming to get you.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

http://EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions -->EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

http://EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions -->EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

WT - post 98, just up this page.

The off topic comment was thrown at both of you. It usually takes more than one to lead a thread off track. It does take some will power to resist responding to off topic issues.The whole thing is not really very pertinent to the basic issues of dating.You have avoided discussing the core evidence for the validity of dates. This has been the case for almost all of the literalists that come here. It is very odd since if it was possible to prove the earth to be only 6,000 years old then the evolutionary processes would become highly suspect in a stroke.However, the various creation research organizations don't make more than joke attempts on the evidence or methods. Those who claim to be YEC's come here and ignore the dates and dating threads.