|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Starlight Within a Young Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The size and shape of the Earth's orbit has been very well known since 1800 or before, ... I believe the greeks had worked out a rough curvature of the earth from the different lengths of shadows at noon on the same days from same length gnomons at different latitudes. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I looked over the article, but could find absolutely no reference to the methodology used or the criteria applied to eliminate contamination.
The closest I could find was:
quote: And in under "references and notes":
quote: This last statement is false, on two levels. First, the amount of 14C in a specimen does not depend on the method of measurement -- it is there or it isn't. Second, radioactive decay does not eliminate ALL radioactive elements by decay, no matter what the half life is there is always the possibility of some remaining in a sample. It is more likely that such small levels will be detected with more advanced and sensitive instruments. This of course is one of the sources of the background radiation levels that they say they have eliminated in the first statement. Of course dismissing the evidence of contamination and background as being "completely unhelpful in explaining its source" does not mean that this has been SHOWN to be the case, they are just denying the evidence that contradicts their position. The kicker is when they state "as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown" ... and don't give a single reference. Not one. Could it be that they are making a bare unsupported assertion while using KNOWN cases of contamination to INTENTIONALLY provide false samples?
quote: This too is a false statement: 14C dating is only good for samples less than 50,000 years. Anything older than that is misuse of the dating method -- and likely intentionally by Baumgardner et al -- because (could it be?) that is where background levels and contamination are KNOWN to make the results unreliable. "reference 3" is Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model available in PDF atError | The Institute for Creation Research quote: And "fossilized organic material" is by definition contaminated:
quote: But there is one more issue to deal with in this "paper" ...
quote: The issue of contamination is not just biological contamination - that is a straw man fallacy. Contamination can also come from non-organic sources, and it can also be radioactive. The easiest way to contaminate samples for 14C testing is to subject them to radiation that reconverts 14N to 14C and thus results in false elevated levels of 14C for detection. Curiously the false young dates for ancient coals and oil is directly related to radioactive contamination and not related to geological age of the sample -- thus indicating a high correlation with radioactive contamination. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: Unless of course you WANT false results ... then you go LOOKING for radioactive contamination of fossils. This demonstrates that the opening statement on radiocarbon dating in the "RATE" article is and outright falsehood:
quote: Not just because of the errors listed previously but because the sources they are intentionally using for samples are those specifically listed that are known to be contaminated by radioactivity from other sources. Curiously the issue of 14C dating has nothing to do with starlight and fantasy models of a universe and it's effect on explaining the astronomical age of the universe and the earth. What it does show is that Humphreys ... and Baumgardner and others ... are not interested in eliminating sources of errors to develop scientific conclusions, but in actually using known sources of errors to create false impressions for gullible people. Meanwhile the evidence of annual layers still shows the world is older than any YEC model I know of.
Message 40 Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments. quote: What part about the argument from authority being a logical fallacy DO you understand? A blind man shooting at a target will occasionally hit a bull's eye but that does not make him a marksman. The claims that Humphrey's work is not valid science is based on evaluation of that work by scientists that show where, how and why it is wrong. Those are the GOOD arguments. and btw, some of the best writers of Science Fiction are scientists. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Which "understanding," Nem? The triangulation part is precisely the same thing surveyors use on land Well, that's what I wanted to know-- whether or not triangulation was used, or if by some other method that I was unaware of. I know that triangulation is very accurate here, but I wasn't certain if new methods have been devised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4310 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
Nemesis, A while back nosyned posted this. I had to look it up (thought I bookmarked it) Stellar Parallax
Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
So, according to the same logic, all Velikovsky's theories concerning the planets acting independent of physics, with Mars causing the plagues of Egypt due to some close encounter, has to be correct because he predicted Venus would be hot?
Is it absolutely impossible a person could accidently reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons? Even a clock that doesn't work is right twice a day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6339 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
It is true that they do not give to many clues on where and how they got those results. I will continue looking for now, your references are helpful though.
Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’ * Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Reply should be on
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) As that thread deals specifically with age dating methods, and discusses Radiocarbon as it corroborates other systems. Of particular note is that the effect of climate on carbon 14 dating is also matched by the effect of climate on the annual layer systems, and that any criticism of carbon dating needs to address how this correlation occurs. Then we can leave this thread to refutations of your astronomical assertions. Such as Message 34. Enjoy. {abe}I have transfered the carbon 14 debate to Message 50 so we can continue there. I apologize for dragging your topic off on a tanget.{/abe} Edited by RAZD, : abe end we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Origen Member (Idle past 6312 days) Posts: 52 Joined: |
The problem with the Big Bang is it says little about how it banged, why it banged or exactly when it banged. Its a thermodynamic dead end, and the laws of physics cannot break down at the mere suggestion of a philosopher.
Now I find M-Theory an interesting theory because it does something that atheists swear oaths not to do: Its teaches things that are unseen by the atheists. I think M-Theory (membrane theory) may be a little misleading. Did the white-hold universe become a membrane? Probably not but who actually knows for certain. Though it is my belief that M-theory can receive some credit if it does rule out monotheism--hence, M-Theory=M-onotheism in my personal view of this metaphysical conjecture. My favorite evolutionists, DR.M.Kaku, who I respect as a scientist, said that "our universe could be just one bubble in an ocean of bubbles." What I see in this view is not an accidental universe nor a solution for the accidental Big Bang. I see a bounded universe!! I see 11/12 dimensions of space-time which can explain why we cannot see angels, but many prophets have literally seen the dimensional doors open when they were called by the LORD. Back to Humpherys Starlight and Time (an awesome book!!). Now if we live in a bounded universe and even Big Bang theory agrees that the universe had a beginning (though the details differ), then perhaps the answer of starlight in a young universe is indeed supported by gravitation time dilation and the bubble-multiverse, since God is Infinite in existence and He has been creating even before He created the earth and everything in it. He did create the angels and they are the link that solves the alien-mystery and the starlight problem in a young universe. True. The universe is billions of years in age! But gravitational time-dilation has been proven and it make sense that gravity distorts time sinse it does the same right here on earth! How easy it will distort time beyong the earth's atmosphere! Of course, inn reality, all cosmogonical models cannot be proven and every one of them has to be accepted by faith. No need to force a cosmogonical view on anyone in the public! Everything was nothing before there was something. Everything is something even if its nothing at all. For nothingness came from Something, and that Something has always been there. Without an Infinite Designer, nothing, could not have ever been. For even Nothing is Something; And from Something...came everything. ~ Jason Fessenden |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikebForJesus Junior Member (Idle past 5687 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
Do we have any peer-review studies on this "de novo" effect?
Can it happen with the other radiometric dating methods? If so; what effects does it have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hello, MikeB, and welcome to EvC!!
There's a more recent article with quite a few literature references here:RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination? I'm sure RAZD will be along shortly, too. I very much doubt that you would see similar effects with the other common radiodating methods for a couple of reasons. First, the other isotopes used have half-lives on the order of the age of the Earth, so you wouldn't see the parent isotope ever getting to such low levels that contamination would bias results. Second, most other methods measure daughters, not parents. And thirdly, I'm not aware of any means to "replenish" isotopes like potassium-40 or rhenium-187 in the ground - only in supernovae. Edited by Coragyps, : add paragraph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In reading back over this thread I noted the brief discussion of recent radiocarbon dates in supposedly ancient coal and natural gas.
These are typical creationist mistakes, not problems with radiocarbon dating. Here are analyses I did of two of the most common creationist claims: ================== Claim: Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Analysis: False information due to sloppy research. This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.) The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample: Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia ” 1680 170. A.D. 270 What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data. The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam . ” But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy. The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find “Pennsylvanian” in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years. This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely. Reference Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323. ================== Claim: Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) ” should have been 50 to 135 million years old. C14 gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively. Analysis: False information due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with radiocarbon dating. This was another difficult reference to track down because the original source is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question originates in Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, page 200.) The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraphs describing these two samples:
Note the little “>” symbols in front of the dates? This means “greater than” and denotes that the measured ages reflect the limits of the instrumentation rather than an actual age. In other words, the creationists either goofed and missed the “>” symbols, or hoped that nobody would check up on their research. Rather than serving as an example of the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating, this refuted creationist claim serves as another example of the inaccuracy of creationist research. Reference Trautman, Milton A. and Eric H. Willis. Isotopes, Inc. Radiocarbon Measurements V. Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, pp. 161-203. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
NosyNed gave a POTM for this message.
Alas, it is very off-topic and thus is buried in an inappropriate topic. I very much encourage you to submit the same message as at the Proposed New Topics forum. The subtitle will make a wonderful new topic title. I'm confident the new PNT will get a rapid promotion. Now back to the topic drift/abandonment problem. This topic has come back to life after being idle for pushing two years. I think I need to kill it (close it). Will leave open for about 15 minutes to catch any messages in preparation. If anyone wishes to make a case for this topic being reopened, go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024