Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
58 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 46 of 194 (556777)
04-21-2010 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Flyer75
04-21-2010 2:30 AM


Re: RATE
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry.

Points Refuted A Thousand Times.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Flyer75, posted 04-21-2010 2:30 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 47 of 194 (556780)
04-21-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Flyer75
04-21-2010 2:30 AM


Re: RATE
Flyer75 writes:

PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry.


Points Refute A Thouasnd Times. Used to indicate that the points brought up have been refuted from the very get go, but still seem to pop up now and again when creationists claim they have evidence for creation. In short, if you se this term used, it means that that claim has been refuted so many times, it's a mystery as to why it's still being used.

BTW, ICR has this Bible for $35. Not sure why one would be selling it for $500!!!

$ 35 sounds a much more reasonable price. Why it's sold for $ 500 there? Some peeople will buy into anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Flyer75, posted 04-21-2010 2:30 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1196 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 48 of 194 (556781)
04-21-2010 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taq
04-20-2010 5:09 PM


quote:
If you are looking for a signal that is just barely above background you have to be extra careful with sample selection and prep.

Yes, and the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material and to prepare it in parallel with the unknown samples, using the same chemical reagents, the same batch of glassware, the same combustion and graphitization procedures, the same analysis run in the AMS system, etc. Then treat this "radiocarbon-dead" sample as a total process background to be subtracted. This way any surprises due to contaminated chemicals, dirty ion source, etc. are captured and subtracted out.

Unfortunately, the YECs cannot do this because they are stuck in a different paradigm. They don't believe the earth is old enough to have truly "radiocarbon-dead" material. So they don't do proper background subtractions and they fool themselves even further.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 04-20-2010 5:09 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 04-21-2010 9:34 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2010 8:48 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 88 by Pollux, posted 11-26-2011 7:12 AM kbertsche has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 49 of 194 (556829)
04-21-2010 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by kbertsche
04-21-2010 3:18 AM


Yes, and the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material and to prepare it in parallel with the unknown samples, using the same chemical reagents, the same batch of glassware, the same combustion and graphitization procedures, the same analysis run in the AMS system, etc. Then treat this "radiocarbon-dead" sample as a total process background to be subtracted. This way any surprises due to contaminated chemicals, dirty ion source, etc. are captured and subtracted out.

This is something our summer interns always miss. I always let them design their first experiments and then ask "What are your negative and positive controls?". The look on their faces is priceless.

Also, it would seem to me that even with a bouncy background you could at least use known concentrations of 14C to create a linear regression and extrapolate the background and measure the std. error. Anything within the std. error compared to background could be considered zero. Perhaps the problem here is that radiocarbon age is not represented by the amount of carbon 14 but by the calculated age which does not relate the data to the actual background in the experiment.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 04-21-2010 3:18 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by kbertsche, posted 04-22-2010 11:44 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 50 of 194 (556846)
04-21-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Flyer75
04-21-2010 2:30 AM


Re: RATE
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry.

As I told you when I first used the acronym with you ( Re: RATE (Message 25)):

quote:
Those claims are not part of a recent study. They date back to the 70's and early 80's and earlier. They are all PRATTs ("points refuted a thousand times") which have been examined and refuted a thousand times over. The reason they have been refuted a thousand times is because somebody like you keeps trotting them out as the latest thing.

Which is true. The creationist literature is very resistent to correction, the pattern we see being that they're far more interested in claims that sound convincing than in the truth. So new creationists pick up the "latest" books and see all those claims that were soundly refuted 30 years ago being presented as if they were the latest thing. So these new creationists think they have all this really great evidence that blows evolution out the window when in reality they have worse than nothing.

It just boggles my mind that people who care so much for their religion and for their faith would insist on building their house upon quicksand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Flyer75, posted 04-21-2010 2:30 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4002 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 51 of 194 (556878)
04-21-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by dwise1
04-20-2010 4:02 PM


Re: RATE
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.

It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2010 4:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Huntard, posted 04-21-2010 2:07 PM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-21-2010 2:15 PM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2010 2:31 PM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 55 by misha, posted 04-21-2010 3:17 PM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 9:56 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 52 of 194 (556880)
04-21-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by IchiBan
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: RATE
IchiBan writes:

The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.

It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.


Wait, we have the actual names of the creationists here? Not only that, they did research too? Or perhaps, the studies we cite are anonymous studies, where scientists don't put their names under them and don't source them at all.

Oh wait, that's a lie...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 53 of 194 (556882)
04-21-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by IchiBan
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: RATE
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.

The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.

So shoot the messenger and ignore the message. How . . . creationist. It really is style above substance for the creationist crowd, isn't it.

Oh, and has anyone mentioned that John Woodmorappe is a pen name?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 194 (556887)
04-21-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by IchiBan
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: RATE
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.

It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.


The real data, with names on the works, are in libraries and research institutions.

Don't get the idea that what is said on internet chat rooms has anything to do with the actual conduct of science.

(And if you look at my examples, upthread, you will note that I provided complete references.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
misha
Member (Idle past 3693 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 55 of 194 (556898)
04-21-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by IchiBan
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: RATE
IchiBan writes:

while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.

Wow, I didn't know we were graced with the real Chuka Ichiban, a genuine Japanese anime.

Can I ask a question? Are your eyes really big and do you have blue hair?

like this. . .

Oh wait, you're not him. So why do you post under that moniker and yet chastise Coyote for not using his real name while posting on an internet message board?

I'm sure if you asked Coyote to see one of his technical papers it would have his real name on it. I'm also sure that it would be properly cited and sourced. The main difference between his papers and those of Morris et. al. is that Coyote's papers would actually have science in them, actual research. He would pose a thesis and then test that thesis with data collected from his archaelogical digs.

Morris, on the other hand, made outrageous claims and then never bothered to test to see if they were actually viable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 04-21-2010 3:45 PM misha has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 56 of 194 (556902)
04-21-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by misha
04-21-2010 3:17 PM


Re: RATE
Morris, on the other hand, made outrageous claims and then never bothered to test to see if they were actually viable.

Morris also borrowed heavily from George McCready Price (The New Geology, 1923), the original modern-day creationist. They were already PRATT's before Morris published his first book in the 1950's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by misha, posted 04-21-2010 3:17 PM misha has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 194 (556950)
04-21-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by kbertsche
04-21-2010 3:18 AM


oil raise your 14C ...
Hi kbertsche, thanks for your input on this topic.

... the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material ...

As an interesting side note to this, there is a search on for pure "radiocarbon-dead" oil: I ran into this while looking into young dates for coal:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

quote:
Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. ... So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos.

So it is difficult to find oils etc that have not come into contact with other radioactive sources and cause a background level of 14C decay. The unscrupulous creationist only needs to look for radioactive contaminated samples and send them in to the various labs to get erroneous results.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 04-21-2010 3:18 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 58 of 194 (556954)
04-21-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by IchiBan
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: RATE
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.

Sounds like someone is a little shaken by this complete take-down of RATE - and this is nothing compared to Kirk's original thread over at theologyweb - masterful stuff. Hey, Ichiban, dare you go over to http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916&highlight=baumgardner and see one of your heros (Baumgardner) have his ass handed to him on a plate? And by someone using their real name...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by IchiBan, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Flyer75, posted 04-21-2010 10:19 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 64 by kbertsche, posted 04-22-2010 1:10 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 59 of 194 (556955)
04-21-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by cavediver
04-21-2010 9:56 PM


Re: RATE
I went over there and that's a ton to read from a laymen's perspective but I fail to see where anyone, kbertsche, Baumbgardner, or anyone over there is getting "their ass handed to them."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 9:56 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2010 10:41 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 04-22-2010 12:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 04-22-2010 1:11 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1171 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 60 of 194 (556956)
04-21-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Flyer75
04-21-2010 10:19 PM


Re: RATE
I went over there and that's a ton to read from a laymen's perspective but I fail to see where anyone, kbertsche, Baumbgardner, or anyone over there is getting "their ass handed to them."

In science, you are either right or you lose a great deal of respect. There is no respect for errors. A scientist can admit uncertainty, and there is no discredit there (unless the answers are clearly known). But a scientists who publishes and defends what are clearly errors loses pretty much all credibility.

Given that, here are two things that may help you as a layman understand this better.

First, these measurements are generally being done out near the limits of the equipment. That's where things get a little less precise, or a lot less precise depending on the quality of the equipment and the care with which the samples are treated/pre-treated.

Second, pay attention to the claims being made about contamination, both in the initial sample and the inherent contamination from the sample preparation process.

Both of these factors combine to give C14 readings in "dead" samples. Scientists are aware of these problems, and attribute them, I think correctly, primarily to the causes I mentioned above.

Creationists, on the other hand, often refuse to acknowledge the contamination problems and the inherent variations in the equipment. They make a case for a young earth, in direct contradiction to huge masses of data from virtually all fields of science, based on tiny amounts of C14 in these "dead" samples. That is a huge conclusion, a huge "leap of faith" if you will, to be drawn from a few samples that can readily be explained by other means.

And there is no incentive for them to find "clean" samples. Given their presuppositions, they will want to find the contaminated samples because then they can make their case to those who aren't as familiar with the C14 process. Clean samples, for creationists, are a disaster.

Hope this helps.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Flyer75, posted 04-21-2010 10:19 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021