Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 151 of 305 (712116)
11-27-2013 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by JonF
11-27-2013 10:17 AM


Nice addition to the pile.
But it occurs to me that some of these references might stay in their dusty old file electronic file cabinets absent someone like mindspawn begging us to pull them out of their holes.
That said, this is a perfect example of the kind of patience testing debate style that some posters use, and posters like me rail against. Mindspawn's absolutely refusal to vet his own supposition with even a second of googling. Just blurt out that magnetic fields affect decay rates without the least bit of poking around.
Dr. Adequate included some relevant material on the variability of decay rates in his geology series. There are a few examples of species whose decay rates are slightly variable. I believe some electron capture rates can be exploited, but those rates are dependent on the absorption of inner orbital electrons and thus one might understand why those rates might be affected by physical processes.
I'm sure mindspawn has those annual variations of decay rate detacting by a few scientists in mind, but the association of that effect with magnetic fields exists only in the fog that constitutes the interior of mindspawn's head. (Yeah, I know. This is the ridicule he is complaining about.) He manufactured that association when he wanted to argue that a neutron flux was slowing decay rates currently. A deadly neutron flux as it turned out.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 11-27-2013 10:17 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Diomedes, posted 11-27-2013 3:06 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 152 of 305 (712128)
11-27-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
11-27-2013 10:52 AM


Just blurt out that magnetic fields affect decay rates without the least bit of poking around
mindspawn writes:
Whether we look at Thorium 230, Uranium 234, Uranium 238 or carbon dating, we have the same problem that the magnetic field effect on radiocarbon and radioactive elements is largely unknown and has to be calibrated against an additional source of accurate dates
Wow. Just wow. I almost got an ice-cream headache reading that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 11-27-2013 10:52 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 153 of 305 (712191)
11-28-2013 2:02 PM


Corroboration vs. calibration
Did I correctly read that RAZD post from earlier today which discussed radiocarbon dating materials from the Egyptian Old Kingdom?
If I read correctly, the ages they obtained were uncalibrated, and still agreed closely with the Egyptian chronology.
It means that the radiocarbon method has been found to be reasonably accurate back well over 4,000 years without ever bringing up the issue of calibration.
That also means the entire discussion of calibration has been unnecessary.
So far Mindspawn has wasted all of his time (and ours) dealing with calibration, which just adjusts the radiocarbon ages by a small percentage to account for atmospheric fluctuation in C14 levels. He hasn't laid a glove on the radiocarbon method and its underlying principles.
I think in reality that Mindspawn didn't know the difference between "corroboration" and "calibration."
Conventional radiocarbon ages are calibrated to account for atmospheric fluctuation. This corrects the radiocarbon age by a small percentage.
And in the paper RAZD cited the uncalibrated radiocarbon ages were corroborated as they correctly determined the ages of the artifacts and materials with known historical dates from the Old Kingdom. This served to verify the accuracy of the method independent of any calibration.
(The tree-rings and other items that make up the calibration curve also have the side effect of corroborating the radiocarbon ages, but Mindspawn thinks the calibration curve's all phoney, so we'll ignore it for the moment.)
Edited by Coyote, : grammar

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2013 2:48 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 8:19 PM Coyote has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 305 (712193)
11-28-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Coyote
11-28-2013 2:02 PM


Re: Corroboration vs. calibration
That also means the entire discussion of calibration has been unnecessary.
I don't agree with your reasoning. Yes, it does turn out that uncalibrated C-14 dates are accurate enough to remove all doubt that the earth is > 50,000 years old. But there is indeed a well known issue with the variability of C-14 production, and in a debate like this one, calibration is the easiest way of showing that the variability in the actual C-12/C-14 ratio in the atmosphere is small despite fairly large variations in C-14 production rate.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 2:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 3:26 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 155 of 305 (712195)
11-28-2013 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
11-28-2013 2:48 PM


Re: Corroboration vs. calibration
I don't agree with your reasoning. Yes, it does turn out that uncalibrated C-14 dates are accurate enough to remove all doubt that the earth is > 50,000 years old. But there is indeed a well known issue with the variability of C-14 production, and in a debate like this one, calibration is the easiest way of showing that the variability in the actual C-12/C-14 ratio in the atmosphere is small despite fairly large variations in C-14 production rate.
It is just a matter of how we approach the debate.
Mindspawn stated in his opening post that his problem was with calibration, so in an effort to try and avoid what has amounted to over 150 posts, I tried to bypass calibration entirely.
I still think that if we ignore calibration Mindspawn will be forced to deal with the radiocarbon method, something he hasn't even gotten to yet.
Instead we have just been into one of the largest rabbit holes I've seen, in which RAZD has demonstrated the case for calibration many times over, to no avail. We're at the bottom of the rabbit hole and still digging.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2013 2:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2013 8:48 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 305 (712200)
11-28-2013 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Coyote
11-28-2013 2:02 PM


small correction
If I read correctly, the ages they obtained were uncalibrated, and still agreed closely with the Egyptian chronology.
not quite ... they took 7 samples and dated them by 14C, uncalibrated dates, and then took the uncalibrated dates and compared them to a dendrochronology (Bristlecone pine was used in another Egyptian study) to arrive at a dendro calendar age, and that age corresponded with the historical dates. A two-step process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 2:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 11:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 305 (712203)
11-28-2013 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
11-28-2013 3:26 PM


Re: Corroboration vs. calibration
Mindspawn stated in his opening post that his problem was with calibration, so in an effort to try and avoid what has amounted to over 150 posts, I tried to bypass calibration entirely.
I understand that. And what you did was a way to respond to mindspawn's initial question. Nothing at all wrong with what you did.
We're at the bottom of the rabbit hole and still digging.
I can understand why you feel that way. But RAZD has made substantial progress. Mindspawn will never explicitly admit losing, but his resorting to 9000 style arguments and statements of science that aren't even arguably true is losing the debate.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 3:26 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 11-29-2013 7:35 AM NoNukes has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 158 of 305 (712204)
11-28-2013 9:20 PM


Lammerts? Minnie's citing Lammerts? Sheesh, even Henry Morris realized that Lammerts was a pathological liar, especially in his "scientific" work

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-28-2013 10:42 PM JonF has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 159 of 305 (712208)
11-28-2013 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by JonF
11-28-2013 9:20 PM


Lammerts? Minnie's citing Lammerts? Sheesh, even Henry Morris realized that Lammerts was a pathological liar, especially in his "scientific" work
Perhaps you could provide a source documenting Lammerts' dishonesty. If such sources exist I'm sure RAZD would find them very helpful in shutting down yet another of Mindie's claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by JonF, posted 11-28-2013 9:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Pressie, posted 11-29-2013 12:34 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied
 Message 164 by JonF, posted 11-29-2013 8:42 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

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


(1)
Message 160 of 305 (712209)
11-28-2013 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
11-28-2013 8:19 PM


Re: small correction
If I read correctly, the ages they obtained were uncalibrated, and still agreed closely with the Egyptian chronology.
not quite ... they took 7 samples and dated them by 14C, uncalibrated dates, and then took the uncalibrated dates and compared them to a dendrochronology (Bristlecone pine was used in another Egyptian study) to arrive at a dendro calendar age, and that age corresponded with the historical dates. A two-step process.
OK, thanks.
I did not read the original article--they wanted me to register to see it, and I get far too much spam already.
It sounds like they did standard dates then, with calibration.
By the way, IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves are now out:
Radiocarbon
I have been checking some of my dates against the new curve using Calib 7.0, and the changes from previous curves are quite small for the ranges my dates fall into (<10,000 BP).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 8:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Pollux, posted 11-29-2013 6:20 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 161 of 305 (712210)
11-29-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Atheos canadensis
11-28-2013 10:42 PM


I got this abstract from somewhere, I can't remember where (saved it without a source).
Just remember that I know nothing about dendrology and might have interpreted it incorrectly; RAZD will know more than me:
Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.
The abstract of the propaganda reads:
quote:
Various treatments were given to 8-month-old bristle-cone pine seedlings; and it was found that supplementing the winter day length with a 250-watt heat lamp in order to give a total of 16 hours of illumination proved most effective. The lamp was placed about three feet above the seedlings, and the temperature in the growth chamber was kept at about 70'F. Those which received a short (circa 21 days) drought stress period in August of the third growing season showed up having one more growth ring than the control seedlings, that is four growth rings instead of three. Also seedlings which received a two week drought stress period in August of the fourth growing season showed a similar extra growth ring. The bearing of this on the estimates of the age of the bristle-cone pine forest is discussed. Under the San Francisco type of both spring and fall rainfall with a relatively dry period in the summer the young forests on the White Mountains would have grown an extra ring per year quite often. Accordingly it is believed that the presumed 7100 year age postulated for these trees by Ferguson would be reduced to about 5600 years, on the assumption that extra rings would be formed by stress during about 50% of the years between the end of the Flood and about 1200 A.D.
This basically means that he created artificial conditions in a laboratory. Conditions where he artificially produced extra growth seasons and thereby extra growth rings by simulating shorter seasons. In effect he made the year 'shorter' from the viewpoint of the tree; thus growing more 'annual' rings.
Then he pretended that those conditions applied in reality and also pretended that coastal San Fransico type weather would also apply at the top of the Sierra Nevadas.
To me it seems as if our boy was dishonest.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-28-2013 10:42 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 162 of 305 (712213)
11-29-2013 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Coyote
11-28-2013 11:56 PM


Re calibration
Hi Coyote,
I wonder what people like Mindspawn think is going on with the calibration tables. Why would the tables be produced, and modified as better information is available, if they were not at least reasonably accurate? Given the reasonable correlation of C14 dates and dendro with Egyptian history, there is not much time to the Flood to fit in all the extra tree rings required, let alone fitting in Suigetsu. Mindspawn should show us his calibration curve to see what C14 dates of say 10,000 and 30,000 years would represent in his scheme.
What I have seen on Creationist sites, they don't even try to address the problem of correlations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 11:56 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 163 of 305 (712215)
11-29-2013 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by NoNukes
11-28-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Corroboration vs. calibration
NoNukes writes:
Mindspawn will never explicitly admit losing,...
I don't fault him for this. I think most of us have had personal experience with the difficulty of admitting defeat and can identify with him.
RAZD's the right person to take the debate to an absurd level of detail (not a criticism of RAZD, it's been forced on him), but what I do fault Mindspawn for is making this necessary. His scenario requires trees all over the world to synchronously average 11 or 12 extra tree rings per year for millennium after millennium, which fails the very first level of sanity check. The discussion about extra tree rings should never have happened. Mindspawn should have thought for 10 seconds about the implications of all these extra tree rings as an explanation and said to himself, "Nope, that's impossibly unlikely, the error must come from somewhere else," and then never mentioned it. The kind of unlikelihood he requires is miraculous, no different than explaining something by declaring, "It's a miracle!"
There must be many creationists out there familiar enough with forestry or tree science who could tell Mindspawn how silly he's being.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 11-28-2013 8:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2013 9:45 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 170 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2013 6:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 164 of 305 (712216)
11-29-2013 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Atheos canadensis
11-28-2013 10:42 PM


Oops, I have to withdraw my accusation. It was Burdick who was so untrustworthy even Morris and other YECs realized it. Lammerts skated pretty close to the edge but did not lose his colleagues respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-28-2013 10:42 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by JonF, posted 11-29-2013 10:28 AM JonF has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 165 of 305 (712219)
11-29-2013 9:34 AM


I can't figure out how to save a screenshot in a place that I can then post the image here, but if anyone has access to Jstor then you can look at this paper:
Substrate-oriented Distribution of Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California
R. D. Wright and H. A. Mooney
Figure 4 shows a curve of water retention in dolomite substrates that resembles what RAZD was talking about and for which Mindie was demanding evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 11-29-2013 10:52 AM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 171 by ramoss, posted 11-29-2013 6:48 PM Atheos canadensis has 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