Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 33 of 136 (613188)
04-22-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kenny Johnson
04-22-2011 11:36 AM


Re: C14
Kenny Johnson writes:
I like C14 too! I like the fact that with advanced mass spectrometry we have detected C14 in 300 million year old Pennsylvanian coal. Of course, with the half life of C14, that would make the coal no older than 10s of thousands years old. Yeah, radioactive dating, responsible for the 300 million year date is obviously accurate, NOT!
As usual this is a creationist error that gets passed along from one creationist to another without anyone bothering to check the facts. The full details are here:

A Look at Creation Science Part IV
The summary:
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.
If you have any specific questions let me know. I do a lot of C14 dating.
Minor addition: The article reporting these dates was 1966. AMS dating didn't come into common use until the 1990s.
Edited by Coyote, : Addition

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kenny Johnson, posted 04-22-2011 11:36 AM Kenny Johnson has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 136 (613229)
04-23-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2011 6:11 PM


Re: C14
Dr Adequate writes:
I like C14 too! I like the fact that with advanced mass spectrometry we have detected C14 in 300 million year old Pennsylvanian coal. Of course, with the half life of C14, that would make the coal no older than 10s of thousands years old. Yeah, radioactive dating, responsible for the 300 million year date is obviously accurate, NOT!
Could you perhaps say more explicitly what it is you're trying to be wrong about. Creationists have made lots of mistakes about radiocarbon dating, and it is hard to tell from your vague ramblings which particular blunder you're trying to refer to.
I believe it is the blunder I referred to above in Message 33.
Check out the post and link and see if you agree.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2011 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2011 3:00 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 136 (613254)
04-23-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by kbertsche
04-23-2011 3:00 AM


Re: C14
The typical creationist claim is:
Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)
This false claim can be found all over the web.
The blog I cited in my post notes that, "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)."
I believe this is what our creationist, who seems to have disappeared, was referring to. It's a typical creation "science" type of mistake, repeated endlessly on the web.
Add: I doubt whether our creationist knows the difference between AMS and older counting methods. I think that was just thrown in for effect.
Edited by Coyote, : Addition

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2011 3:00 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 136 (618803)
06-06-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chuck77
06-06-2011 1:23 AM


Re: Genesis...
Chuck77 writes:
You can't use Carbon dating to date in the thousands. Creationists claim the age of the Dino's due to the Genesis account of Creation. If you follow the geneologies and the literal six day creation it says Dino's are only 6000 years old. The word dino is "new" and wasn't used in Bible days. The beasts of the field were the dinos. And the average size of Dino's is about that of a sheep which isnt all that crazy to think man lived at the same time as them.
Sorry, that is not correct. The normal range of Carbon-14 dating is back to about 50,000 years, although some labs are experimenting with techniques to reach back perhaps 80,000 years.
Carbon-14 is present in only small quantities in the atmosphere and living organisms, and in organisms that have died half of that amount decays every 5,730 years. After several half-lives the beta decay becomes indistinguishable from the background noise, and that forms the upper limit of the method. Research is being done to reduce background noise and that is where any extensions of the usable range are coming from.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chuck77, posted 06-06-2011 1:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 136 (618881)
06-06-2011 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Nuggin
06-06-2011 3:33 PM


Re: C14
The "Pennsylvanian coal" PRATT is completely refuted in post #33, above.
Add: Message 33
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 06-06-2011 3:33 PM Nuggin has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 136 (618976)
06-07-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:48 AM


Creation "science"
Chuck77 writes:
Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.
Dinosaur bones have been Carbon-14 dated, and returned measurable amounts of C-14.
But the results are meaningless. When you are dealing with objects at or past the usable range of the method contamination and equipment error become the major factors.
They have also dated diamonds and found trace amounts of C-14. That was an experiment to determine how much residual contamination resulted from the interior of the C-14 measuring equipment. Those results do not show there was C-14 in the diamond.
But in their desperation for anything which will support their beliefs, creationists take these results out of context and claim they support a young earth.
Pretty silly, eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 136 (619270)
06-09-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.
"John Woodmorappe" is a pen name for a high school teacher.
He knows nothing about dating beyond what he reads in the creationist literature (i.e., lies).
Here are some links that can help you -- if you actually read them:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Tree Ring and C14 Dating
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

If you have any questions on radiocarbon dating let me know, as I do a lot of it in my work.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 68 of 136 (619497)
06-10-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
You might check the links on various dating techniques I posted upthread.
You can't use C-14 to date into the millions of years, but that hasn't stopped creationists from dating dinosaur fossils. When they get readings they ignore contamination and other issues and claim proof of a young earth. Pretty silly, eh?
They have also used studies on diamonds to claim that even diamonds have residual C-14, but that was a test of residual carbon and C-14 that builds up in the dating equipment. Diamonds were used because they truly contain no C-14, and this let them establish the "background" for the equipment.
Please check the links I posted and let me know if you have any questions on radiocarbon dating.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 80 of 136 (619560)
06-10-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
06-10-2011 11:46 AM


Dating fossils
One thing creationists love to be wrong about is "circular dating."
We can date fossil layers via various radiometric techniques, such as was mentioned above, by dating adjacent volcanic layers.
And if there are unique marker fossils in a particular layer we can then date that layer in other areas by means of those marker fossils. That is a lot easier and cheaper and much quicker.
Thus the creationists' (false) claim that we date fossils by layers and layers by fossils or some such silliness.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 11:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 06-10-2011 12:51 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 136 (619970)
06-13-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:03 PM


Carbon-14 dating
I'd just like to bring this research to your attention in response to your assertion that carbon dating is accurate.
"Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/05/110518121227.htm
Sorry, scientists don't date rocks with Carbon-14 dating. That technique goes back only about 50,000 years and must be applied to something what was once alive (bone, shell, plant material, etc.).
Rocks are dated using other radiometric tests.
If you want to comment on science, it is best to learn something about it first as you are bound to run into folks who have learned something.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by JonF, posted 06-13-2011 4:12 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024