|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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, : grammarReligious 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Lammerts? Minnie's citing Lammerts? Sheesh, even Henry Morris realized that Lammerts was a pathological liar, especially in his "scientific" work
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3018 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3018 days) Posts: 141 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024