Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,813 Year: 1,561/23,288 Month: 1,561/1,851 Week: 201/484 Day: 19/105 Hour: 5/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
Coyote
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 77 (610148)
03-26-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
03-26-2011 6:54 PM


Dating sand
My main field in dating is radiocarbon, and it would be of no use on sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 03-26-2011 6:54 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 77 (610178)
03-27-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
03-27-2011 11:39 AM


dwise1 writes:

OK, Law of Superposition. It was late and I had had a glass of wine. I've posted much worse before.

Have a bumper sticker on my truck:

Archaeologists Assume Superposition

Gets me strange looks sometimes...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2011 11:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 77 (610213)
03-28-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Radiocarbon Dating Questions
If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms. That, along with this matter of dating sediment rock making up fossils leads me to think dating methodology has a problem.

Sorry, this has been dealt with. DeVries (1958) identified the need to calibrate radiocarbon samples because of fluctuations of C14 levels in the atmosphere. Since then a calibration curve has been worked out based on tree ring and other anular phenomena (which, incidentally, agree with one another) to correct for those atmospheric fluctuations.

Really, do you think those who use radiocarbon dating are stupid??? We want the most accurate dates we can get, and different experts over the years have identified potential sources of error and we have corrected for them.

Dating methodology has a lot to do with interpreting observed data in the strata, and frankly, as well as whether the flood event happened. There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood. This, along with the problems I see with dating methodology and other debatable flood related arguments keep me in the floodist camp.

You have no idea what scientists have come up with because anything that disagrees with your religious bias is rejected out of hand; you have kept yourself in deliberate ignorance/denial.

Until you know something about radiocarbon dating you would be better off listening to those who do, and refraining from expressing opinions based only on ancient tribal myths.

Once again, radiocarbon dating is an area with which I am familiar. If you have any specific questions I will be happy to answer them for you.

But if you continue to hold to a belief that a global flood at 4,350 years ago changed everything--in spite of the total disproof of that belief going back some 200 years--then there is little that you can learn from me or anyone.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw 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