|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pathlights' criticisms of C14 dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
In a thread on faith and belief, Zachariah answers some questions about why he distrusts conventional dating methods, with examples given in Message 28 and Message 29. This thread is to allow further discussion of those examples in the appropriate forum.
Zacharia did not indicate the source he is used, but it is almost certainly the notoriously inaccurate and misleading Pathlights on-line creation-evolution encyclopedia. I link to the page which repeats all the same examples that Zacharia has given. I will show that all the criticisms save one are based on trivial errors of comprehension or knowledge.
Zachariah writes: Okay. In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archeologists towards it as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having applied this method..." They may not have changed their experiments to suit their findings, but they refuse to allow people to see the true complete findings that refute their arguments. This is lying and is far from scientific findings as you can get. They are terrified that others may see the errors so they just don't show the evidence that confirms what I said. It is inaccurate. Professor Olsson is making a criticism of the practice of archaeology for failing to recognize when their models are disproved by the new methods of radiometric dating. The reason for making this comment is because radiometric dating is highly reliable and completely objective. Some difficulties exist, but it is far and away more reliable than the other indirect methods being used in archaeology before this. Since the time of this quote, radiometric dating has continued to be developed and refined, and its demonstrated record of success, independently confirmed by other methods, means that it is now well accepted as an essential tool in the arsenal of archaeology, with clear recognition that a theory which is inconsistent with absolute dating methods is almost certainly wrong. There is considerable irony in Zacharia using this quote, since it is making a direct criticism of those who ignore or dismiss radiometric dating, and continue to defend invalid ideas without acknowledgement of the hard empirical information available in radiocarbon dating that disproves their claims. About four years ago I emailed Professor Olsson directly to request her comment on this matter, in the hope that a direct word from the source would help put dispute over what she was saying to rest. You can read my initial report of that contact in the Google archive Olsson's email notes that sometimes results she has acted for a "customer" to give them radiometric dates, which are subsequently ignored. She also notes that there have been times when the customer has later on admitted that their original ideas were in fact wrong, and that the radiocarbon dates force them to reconsider their position.
Zacharia writes: Why did they find a mammoth in the Lena River in Russia that was c dated at 26,000 years but the peat layer 18 inches above was 5,000. It would take 500-2,000 solar year (present growth rate) to produce such a layer. There is nothing at all wrong with this. Both dates are probably correct. It is usual for layers above a deposition to be younger than material buried in the lower layers. The creationist source appears to suggest that the peat layer should have deposited at continuous rates since the time between burial of the mammoth. This is completely false. There is no reason for such a grossly uniformitarian assumption; and even the uniformitarians of the eighteenth century never applied such an absurd caricature of uniformitarianism.
Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in Fairbanks Alaska was dated at 24,000 years. the hair from the limb of the carcass was dated at 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful. Pathlights gives no source for this claim, but as luck would have it I know a bit about this one. The dates are taken from two different mammoth carcasses, found at two different locations in Alaska. Both dates are correct. You can also see this refuted with references in the index to creationist claims, CD011.2.
A survey of 15,000 radiocarbon dates found that of over 9,000 trees, animals and man 12% were greater than 12,530 years. Only 3 of the 15,000 were listed as 'infinite'. Samples of coal, oil, natural gas said to be millions of years old were dated less than 50,000 years. Deep ocean deposits to contain some of the most primitive life dated within 40,000 years. These four factoids are credited by the Pathlights encyclopedia to a survey made in 1982 by Robert Lee that considered dates in the journal Radiocarbon. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this article, but the only one of the above which suggests any problem at all is the one about coal, oil and natural gas. That most reported dates in the journal are less than 12,530 years is a reflection of the how this method is mostly applied. I'm surprised that the proportion of young dates is not even higher, given that the extensive use of the method in archaeology. The reference to primitive life is just weird. Lee is apparently confused on what it means for life to be primitive. Deep trenches are not a source for very ancient life; though they may be a source for very primitive life. This is not an error. It is known that coal and oil sometimes (but not always) contain tiny traces of carbon-14. It should be noted here that Lee's survey was in 1982, at which time 50,000 years was right at the limits of detection of the method. This is the only example Zacharia has raised which actually is a genuine problem, rather than simply a straightforward error of comprehension or data. There are a number of known causes which can result in the tiny amounts of C-14 detected, and research is ongoing to discover exactly what causes are at work in various cases. A good discussion is available at Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits by Kathleen Hunt at talkorigins. The two most likely causes are in-situ production of C-14 by other radioactive sources; or effects of bacterial contaminations. As with any other dating method, sources of potential contamination are investigated all the time, and certain conditions are identified which make the contamination less likely and allow more confidence in the dates.
That is enough for now. I'm going home. Proove yourself to be correct. Then I will listen. I prooved mine. —Zach With respect; to prove your case you need to give better references. I believe I have proved that all your examples except one are based on simple errors and miscomprehensions, and are not supportive of your rejection of radiometric dating. The one case that has some merit is not a general refutation of this well confirmed method, but an instance where some contamination can distort results at the edge of detectability. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Been away from my computer for about 10 hours. Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-25-2004] WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects") Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
Hello Sylas,
This would take too long so I'll throw out the main information. This comes from CreationDigest.com "New RATE Data Supports A Young World" by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. "Our experiments measureed how rapidly nuclear-decayy-generated Helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we published several years before the experiments.4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today." "But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6,000 years." (dealing with the diffusion rate of the zicon and biotite data)"These new data13 agree very well with our "Creation" model prediction, as the figure shows. Moreover, the diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it." You go to Page not found - creationdigest read it and let me know what you think. I hope to get some good insight from you Sylas. God be with you. God bless. -Zachariah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
This comes from CreationDigest.com "New RATE Data Supports A Young World" by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. [...] You go to Page not found - creationdigest read it and let me know what you think. One of the problems here that can inhibit a serious consideration of different subjects is lack of focus. I intended this thread to discuss the radiocarbon dating claims made from the previous thread. However, you have not commented on any of the responses to your earlier claims, but simply bring up another totally different one. Thanks for the link to this paper by Humphreys. I'm familiar with Humphreys and have discussed aspects of this "research" before, but this particular report is new to me. I will read it, and if there is anything new I'll put it in a new thread. Do you have any response to the topic or posts of this thread? Even if it was "I guess I was mistaken", this would be progress. Best wishes -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
No sir I don't. I read what you said and had nothing to add. I gave the information on the other site and when notified to come here you had done all the work for me. Thank you. This is all pretty new to me. I'm learning alot about how they date and such. What do you do by the way. I would have to guess archeology or biology or geology or some science field. You do know your information my friend. I enjoy reading what you have to say. Sorry if I get off subject. I have limited time and do this at work when time allows so I would appreciate a little lattitude, and I get in a hurry. An athiest huh? We'll have to work on that. If there is no God, I hope for your sake you are right. Think of the consiquences...not too fun. God Bless you Sylas. I will talk later. In Christ. -Z
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Think of the consiquences...not too fun. Not to spin wildly off-topic (if you have a response to this, let's do it in another thread), but I think you'll find that most of us atheists aren't too worried. After all if God is content to act like he doesn't exist, then he can hardly blame us if we take him at his word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I guess you finished that topic off pretty quicly Sylas. Zac seems to have given up on that one.
We can refer to this another time I'm sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
Hey crashfrog, long time. Hey, do you do any fishing up there in Minn. I have family up in N. Iowa they go all the time to Minn and catch those Walleye. You think you could FedEx me about ten pounds of walleye sometime in the near future. I never get it anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
actually ned you couldn't be further from the truth. Why would you think that. Fun stuff my brother in Christ. Love Z
[This message has been edited by Zachariah, 04-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Zachariah writes: No sir I don't. I read what you said and had nothing to add. I gave the information on the other site and when notified to come here you had done all the work for me. Thank you. This is all pretty new to me. You're welcome; and I guess that means this thread is done. So I'll diverge a bit to answer other questions...
I'm learning alot about how they date and such. What do you do by the way. I would have to guess archeology or biology or geology or some science field. You do know your information my friend. I enjoy reading what you have to say. Sorry if I get off subject. I have limited time and do this at work when time allows so I would appreciate a little lattitude, and I get in a hurry. An athiest huh? We'll have to work on that. If there is no God, I hope for your sake you are right. Think of the consiquences...not too fun. God Bless you Sylas. I will talk later. In Christ. -Z No, I'm not in any field of science; this is all amateur interest. I did do a science degree, but it was mostly maths and computing with a little bit of physics. However, I've been involved in this debate for a long time; so I can recognize some matters I've seen before and respond very quickly. The Olsson quote and the Fairbanks mammoth I recognized immediately and just reworded some stuff I posted a few years ago on Usenet. The others were also pretty familiar stuff. I have no problem at all with letting you take as much time as you need. Instant responses are not always a good idea. That is partly why I am not responding to the RATE stuff right away. I don't have an immediate response that is directly relevant, and I'm weak on geology. I could give some vague general comments on why I expect it is bunk, and some pointed observations about other material by the same author; but that is all a form of ad hominem. I would prefer to look at the paper you present and consider it on its own merits. That will take some time. If I have something pertinent to add, I'll do it in a new thread. I appreciate that creationists often feel overwhelmed here when they post what seemed good to them, and it suddenly gets rained on with a depth of analysis that they can't hope to match. That is just how it is in real life. Scientific creationism is a small isolated oddity, of no real interest to science. It is rife with errors and incompetance. So unfortunately it is just not possible to debate this on equal terms with someone who has looked into it a bit. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
actually ned you couldn't be further from the truth. Why would you think that. Fun stuff my brother in Christ. Love Z Oh? You have more information on the C-14 dating quotes you supplied? That is the topic here and I thought you'd finished with it. As Sylas notes it can take time to gather information (that's why he's better at this than I am) so you can take your time. It is nice to let us know that you are going to do that though. Also, as Sylas points out, you are taking on a tough task. A lot of people come here thinking that the material put out by the likes of Humphreys is bullet proof. When the holes are pointed out they are disappointed that there isn't anything else to fall back on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You think you could FedEx me about ten pounds of walleye sometime in the near future. I could, but it would be from the store. I hate fishing. If I'm going to sit around and drink beer, I do it inside and play a video game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Pathlights doesn't appear to use these "anomalous" radiocarbon dates, but our ol' buddy Kent Hovind has them on his website:
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
You see these pretty frequently on these forums.... Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61 Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637 A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211 "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.I was able to find the actual papers for the first two, and it makes you wonder just a little about the motives and integrity of Hovind or whoever looked them up for him. The full citations are: A C Riggs, "Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs", Science, 224, pp 58-61, (1984) and M L Keith and G M Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," Science, 141, pp 634-637 (1963). Both articles are "cautionary tales" for others doing radiocarbon dating: be sure that the organism you are dating got its 14C from the atmosphere, not from ancient ground water. In Riggs' study, the snails picked up most of their carbon from bicarbonate with a 14C content of about 3% of modern - the water was from springs fed by an aquifer that is recharged tens of miles away - the water has been underground for thousands of years. K & A's study is similar, but their shells were influenced by ground water that had flowed through 3000+ year old humus. Each paper carefully sets out the reasons for odd dates, and warns other researchers to be aware of these effects. It is inconceivable to me that the original quote-miner, Hovind or whoever, could not have realized this, and cited these articles knowing that 99.9% of his readers would never look them up. Even reading the titles gives it away: "fictitious results" should tell most readers that something's up. I'd say "disingenuous," but "lying like a yellow dog" probably is the better term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
I did find some information from creationdigest on c14 I would like to get your comments on.
"According to the technical monograph "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field," the magnetic field is decaying as a first order exponential with half life of 1400 years, a number much less than the 5700 year half life of C14. The consequence of the decay is that there is corresponding exponential increase of the generation rate of C14. Using present conditions as a reference will result in an increase in the apparent age of older samples." "Geographic location is probably one of the biggest variables in the C14 dating process, yet it seems to be systematically ignored. A few examples include a living tree growing next to an airport dated being about 10,000 years old(5) and a living aquatic plants from Montezuma Well in Arizona which shows apparent ages from 17,300 to 24,750 years.(6) 5. Huber, Bruno, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions,"6. Ogden, J. Gordon III, "Radiocarbon and Pollen Evidence for a Sudden Change in Climate in the Great Lakes Region 10,000 years Ago. "Studies of soil and water conditions show that CO2 concentration in water under grasslands is approximately 1000 times greater than CO2 concentrations in water in equilibrium with air. Forest areas show an increase on CO2 concentratins in both soil and water 100 times that of rainwater.(7) Therefore, both plants and animals from zones with high concentrations of old carbon will provide specimens that appear older by conventional C14 standards than they actually are." 7.Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, Vol 7, p.733, cited in Ginenthal, op cit., p. 176 It looks like we both sides have good arguments. I have an idea. Why don't you, Sylas, me, and someone in Chili, another in say France all plant oak tree seeds on the same day. Allow them to grow for ten years then do C14 test on them and see if they all come out with the same date. I don't think they would. Would that settle the argument or show flaws in your C14 dating? What do you think? Let me know. -Z
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
A link, please, Zachariah? That Montezuma Well thing sure sounds a lot like my Nevada snails.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024