Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
68 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,423 Year: 1,069/14,102 Month: 61/411 Week: 82/168 Day: 11/19 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   14C Calibration and Correlations
Inactive Member

Message 4 of 59 (574093)
08-14-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-13-2010 9:50 PM

Hi archaeologist and welcome to the fray.

i doubt it, you all are like ravenous lions looking for the next piece of lunch meat to come along.

This is not an assumption, it is an objective, impartial and unbiased logial conclusion

please do not say this because this isimpossible and i have quoted dever on this issue that shows that every reputable scholar has gven up on this idea and just make it an ideal.

when it comes to carbon 14 i amprepared to say that it can be on target with dates less than 11,000 years, approx.. anything more than 2 half-lifes i discard, dismiss and doubt.

dendrochronology would confirm some of those dates if it could date the same isotopes but all it can do is possibly give the age of the tree and since we do not know what form they were created in this method fails to be accurate for the age of the earth.

having studied archaeology and knowing that there is a possibility that archaeological remains only go back -possibly--ten thousand years anything beyond that is pure speculation. i even have a little trouble at 10,000 because the ancient records do not record their histories that far back.

then factoring in the truth that everything before Noah's flood wa sdestroyed, we do not know what records were kept or lost thus speculation sets in. oh, people may claim that there is no evidence for the flood but they cannot disprove it either. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

lack of evidence also means that they may not have found any.

back to tree rings, and since dendrochronology is not an exact science and the developement of rings depend upon many factors and one is subjectivity which relly cancels out its reliability.


and this:


Caution: in given years (due to various stresses or climatic anomalies) false rings or missing rings may occur. Therefore, we need to crossdate the years we assign to individual rings.

notice that the crossdating and assigning of years to rings comes from humans and not the trees which mean there is no verification that they are correct and this throws dendrochronology out as a reliable calibration tool.

Crossdating is the most basic principle of dendrochronology. Crossdating is a technique that ensures each individual tree ring is assigned its exact year of formation. This is accomplished by matching patterns of wide and narrow rings between cores from the same tree, and between trees from different locations.

again subjective and no way to verify that they got it correct.

You can clearly see how these two cores crossdate against each other. Notice how the narrower rings (those pointed out with lines between the samples) are common between the two different trees. If the upper core had already been crossdated against a master tree-ring dating chronology, then we could now easily assign calendar dates to the lower core as well.

i quoted from dr. ratzsch's book {pg. 123} that people will see what they want to see while others having the same equipment fail to see it. this is inconclusive and depends upon the state of mind of the research and their beliefs or lack of them.

sorry but you haven't proven to me that calibration and accuracy is there and it depends more on who is doing the calibrating and their beliefs than actual science.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2010 9:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 08-14-2010 1:38 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 08-15-2010 6:49 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2010 11:43 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 6 of 59 (574114)
08-14-2010 3:38 AM

just to throw this out there:


Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.


Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to calibrate the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating. That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method. Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using dendrochronology,[1] however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating[3], making this circular reasoning

and i stand by my argument that using 5 or more different dating systems is not proof of correct dating and I will add that it mounts to as the above quote mentions--circular reasoning.

evolutionist speaking: our dates our correct because our dating systems say so and our dating systems are correct because we say so.

you have no verification

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 8:28 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 1:43 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-14-2010 9:49 PM archaeologist 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 © 2021