Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
52 online now:
Coragyps, Percy (Admin), Stile, xongsmith (4 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,091 Year: 4,839/23,288 Month: 1,744/1,286 Week: 58/353 Day: 5/53 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 3 of 194 (556361)
04-19-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
04-19-2010 10:07 AM


For Calibrated Thinker
Hi Calibrated Thinker! Welcome to EvC!

I had a question about this:

Calibrated Thinker writes:

Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking....By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface...

Since a cubic meter of coal weighs 1506 kilograms (more than one and a half tons for us non-metric people), it seems a bit curious to me that sticks and leaves that have been buried under a few hundred tons of rock and coal still look they're fresh from the forest floor. Shouldn't the sticks have been crushed flat and no longer looking like what you find when bush walking?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2010 10:07 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 04-19-2010 12:24 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 73 of 194 (557197)
04-23-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by IchiBan
04-23-2010 1:27 PM


Re: Guess???
Hi Ichiban,

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but creationists not only argue against the accuracy of 14C dating, they also argue for it. For example, the RATE group (a creationist dating group) argues that 14C dating is so accurate that they can date coal accurately to 50,000 years.

IchiBan writes:

Here is a source from the NDT Resource Center so you cant reject it right off as 'creationist lies'

Let me give you a little information that your source left out and you can decide for yourself whether they're lying.

NDT Resource Center writes:

The word "estimates" is used because there is a significant amount of uncertainty in these measurements.

If by "significant amount of uncertainty" they mean 5-10% for cases where there are no sample problems, then they are correct. But if they mean hundreds of percent of error as in something dated to 50,000 years old is actually 5,000 years old then they're incorrect.

Each sample type has specific problems associated with its use for dating purposes, including contamination and special environmental effects.

This is true. It is common for samples to present challenges, and the radiocarbon dating industry has developed a wide variety of approaches for dealing with this problem. For example, post-discovery contamination can be handled by placing a newly discovered sample in a sample container along with something known to have no carbon contamination. The sample and the carbon-sterile item are both dated, and any non-zero date for carbon-sterile item must be due to contamination and can be subtracted out. Rather than telling you about the techniques science has developed to address problems like contamination and then going on to question how this was done, they just chose not to tell you about it.

First, as mentioned previously, the proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is “well behaved.”

This was true at one time back when Libby first developed the process, but what your source doesn't tell you is that science has worked hard to rectify this, and we now have 14C profiles for the atmosphere going back the necessary 50,000 years. Rather than telling you that science has addressed this problem and then going on to question how this was done, they just chose not to tell you about it.

Complicating things further, various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age.

It is true that this was once a problem, but your article doesn't mention that scientists have developed correction approaches that require measuring the 13C concentration. Rather than telling you about 13C-based corrections and then going on to question the effectiveness, they just chose not to tell you about it.

Were they lying? You decide.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by IchiBan, posted 04-23-2010 1:27 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 89 of 194 (642168)
11-26-2011 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Pollux
11-26-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Snelling's experiments
Are you referring to this:

Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Sandstone

If so then you probably want to read this:

Examples of "Creation Science"

Scroll down to Example #2.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Pollux, posted 11-26-2011 7:12 AM Pollux has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 111 of 194 (683867)
12-14-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 8:06 AM


Hi MorningStar2008, two questions:

  1. What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?

  2. What language is that at the bottom of your posts?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 8:06 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 12-14-2012 8:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 114 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 9:13 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 115 of 194 (683879)
12-14-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 9:13 AM


morningstar2008 writes:

Percy What language is that at the bottom of your posts?
-------------------------------
Âû íàâåðíîå õîòåëè ñïðîñèòü íà êàêîì ÿçûêå ÿ èçúÿñíÿþñü.
ß Russian

Google Translate doesn't recognize your message as Russian, plus your text doesn't look like Russian. Russian looks like this:

Какой язык является то, что в нижней части вашего сообщения?

Or maybe you're having character set problems?

Since translators don't recognize the language you're using I have no idea what you wrote, and in any event, on this board we use English.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 9:13 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 10:43 AM Percy has responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2012 5:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 117 of 194 (683888)
12-14-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 10:43 AM


Hi MorningStar,

We already know you understand English, so now you're just being trollish. Please respond in English.

Coal layers are not dated using radiocarbon dating. Are there any specific problems with radiocarbon dating you'd like to describe?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 10:43 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 2:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 141 of 194 (684208)
12-16-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 1:36 PM


Are you sure you're in the right topic?
What has any of this to do with radiocarbon dating?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 1:36 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 148 of 194 (684288)
12-16-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 9:17 PM


This Thread is About Creationist Problems with Radiocarbon Dating
Hi MorningStar,

You don't need to put people's names in the message title. At the top and bottom of each message is a line stating who it is a reply to.

What you do need to do is clearly state the problems you think exist with radiocarbon dating. Google Translate does an excellent job of translation on technical articles from Russian to English. If you can clearly state your position in Russian then Google Translate will translate it into clear English.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 162 of 194 (684334)
12-17-2012 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 7:49 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Hi MorningStar,

Radiocarbon dating only applies to organic material younger than around 50,000 years.

Cretaceous rocks, coal, the Chicxulub asteroid, the Mariana Trench and limestone layers all formed or occurred millions of years ago, far too long ago for radiocarbon dating to have any relevancy.

Do you have any specific problems with radiocarbon dating that you'd like to raise?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 7:49 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:33 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 165 of 194 (684400)
12-17-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Hi MorningStar,

If we begin with this abstract from a randomly chosen technical article about coal (Natural Mercury Isotope Variation in Coal Deposits and Organic Soils):

Original English writes:

There is a need to distinguish among sources of Hg to the atmosphere in order to more fully understand global Hg pollution. In this study we investigate whether coal deposits within the United States, China, and Russia-Kazakhstan, which are three of the five greatest coal-producing regions, have diagnostic Hg isotopic fingerprints that can be used to discriminate among Hg sources. We also investigate the Hg isotopic composition of modern organic soil horizons developed in areas distant from point sources of Hg in North America. Mercury stored in coal deposits displays a wide range of both mass dependent fractionation (MDF, δ202Hg) and mass independent fractionation (MIF, Δ201Hg). δ202Hg varies in coals by 3‰ and Δ201Hg varies by 0.9‰. Combining these two Hg isotope signals results in what may be a unique isotopic “fingerprint” for many coal deposits. Mass independent fractionation of mercury has been demonstrated to occur during photochemical reactions of mercury. This suggests that Hg found in most coal deposits was subjected to photochemical reduction near the Earth’s surface prior to deposition. The similarity in MDF and MIF of modern organic soils and coals from North America suggests that Hg deposition from coal may have imprinted an isotopic signature on soils. This research offers a new tool for characterizing mercury inputs from natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere and provides new insights into the geochemistry of mercury in coal and soils.

And then using Google Translate we translate it into Russian and back into English we get this:

English to Russian to English writes:

There is a need to distinguish the sources of mercury to the atmosphere in order to better understand the global pollution Hg. In this study we investigate whether coal fields in the United States, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, which are three of the five largest coal-producing regions, have diagnostic Hg isotopic fingerprints, which can be used to discriminate between Hg sources. We also investigate the Hg isotopic composition of modern organic soil horizons developed in areas remote from point sources of mercury in North America. Mercury is stored in the coal fields a wide range of the mass dependent fractionation (MDF, δ202Hg) and mass independent fractionation (MIF, Δ201Hg). δ202Hg coals varies by 3 ‰, and Δ201Hg changed to 0,9 ‰. The combination of these two isotopes of Hg indicates the results that may be unique isotopic "fingerprint" for many coal deposits. The mass independent fractionation of mercury has been shown to occur in photochemical reactions of mercury. This suggests that most of the mercury in coal deposits was subjected to photochemical reduction near the surface of the Earth to the deposition. The similarity in the MDF and MIF modern organic soil and coal from North America show that the deposition of mercury from coal can be printed on the isotopic signature of the soil. This study provides a new tool for the characterization of mercury inputs from natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere and provides a fresh look at the geochemistry of mercury in coal and soil.

Look how easily understandable that double translation is. If you put intelligible English in then you get intelligible English out. That you're posting unintelligible English tells us that you're putting unintelligible Russian into Google Translate. I think this tells us that you're barely literate even in Russian. Just look at this:

morningstar2008 writes:

Although it is here and this is not all it should.

Let me translate that into Russian for you:

morningstar2008's gobbledygook translated into Russian writes:

Несмотря на то, что именно здесь и это не все, что должно.

Does that make any sense to you? Well, it didn't make any sense in English, either. No wonder we can't figure out what you're saying - even if this board were in Russian you wouldn't be making any sense.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is radiocarbon dating. No matter how dire the consequences of your other worries, they are not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss something else then please find another thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:33 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 2:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 6:28 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19626
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 170 of 194 (684559)
12-17-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2012 6:28 PM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
It would be an interesting exercise to find a Russian discussion board and see if one could carry on a passable discussion using Google translate.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 6:28 PM Dr Adequate 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 © 2020