Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
76 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, nwr, Pollux, xongsmith (5 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,212 Year: 10,960/23,288 Month: 212/1,763 Week: 179/390 Day: 68/32 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 29 of 224 (705442)
08-27-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by kofh2u
08-26-2013 10:04 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I am willing to spoon feed both sides with the peace making argument that both Genesis and Science are correct.

Kofh2u, isn't that the position of most creationists? We see creation expressed in science, and see flaws in common scientific arguments. Its not that we oppose science, we just oppose the unscientific methodology of discarding alternative theories before testing them in an unbiased fashion.

If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, just a communal commitment to scientific truths. Could you give a hint how your views differ from mainstream creationism. Just for my interest.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 10:04 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 08-27-2013 11:32 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:36 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-27-2013 12:01 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 08-27-2013 1:19 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 36 of 224 (705577)
08-29-2013 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2013 11:36 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that science has shown that the Bible gets things wrong and contains errors. CreationistsTM simply cannot accept that as a possibility. So, they invent these "flaws" in science so they can focus on that instead of facing the fact that their cherished book isn't perfect.

That 'attack' on science is why these websites exist. It isn't that science really is biased against creationism and unwilling to address it, its that creationists don't have any empirical evidence and science ignores the unevidenced. Creationists feel slighted, but its nothing against them, personally. Its that their approach is unscientific from the get-go.

I can see why you would have that impression, and its your honest appraisal of the situation, but creationists see the obvious bias that you may be unwittingly supporting.

For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought. So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2013 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-29-2013 12:03 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 7:08 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 37 of 224 (705578)
08-29-2013 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-27-2013 12:01 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Over the last 200 years evidence has continued to roll in and from independent lines of inquiry that those who came before could not even imagine. And all of the evidence has supported old earth, evolution, close relationships between all the great apes including humans, no Biblical flood ..

I can understand that is your perspective. Let's see how this discussion unfolds.
(ps close DNA between two outwardly similar creatures is no proof of evolution. Its like seeing similarities of the technology inside two cellphones and concluding they have a common ancestor. A common designer would reflect similarities too)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-27-2013 12:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 08-29-2013 7:51 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 38 of 224 (705579)
08-29-2013 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
08-27-2013 9:46 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Citing the Institute for Creation Research will garner nothing more than laughs when it comes to science or scientific research

Oh really?? Even if some of their researchers are well qualified and make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2013 9:46 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 08-29-2013 7:52 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 39 of 224 (705581)
08-29-2013 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-23-2013 11:33 AM


The basis of your argument seems to be that religious belief is more accurate than scientific dating methods. I don't know if presenting you with scientific evidence will change your mind or not; too often, as Heinlein notes, "Belief gets in the way of learning."
I propose this thread to deal specifically with:

--Scientific evidence supporting dating methods and the age of modern humans, and
--Evidence from creationists supporting the Young Earth position and refuting that scientific evidence.

To begin with, the 10,300 year old date for On Your Knees Cave was established by radiocarbon or C14 dating. They did not date a fossil, but human bone. But this is not the only old radiocarbon date from the same area. The Manis Mastodon Site in northwestern Washington dates to about 13,800 years and Paisley Caves in southeastern Oregon date slightly older than that. It gets worse: Alaska has even older dates, and the Old World has dates on modern humans going back past 100,000 years (although these are not established using the radiocarbon method).

If anyone disagrees with scientific dating methods, here is the chance to present evidence showing how and where it is wrong.

Hi Coyote, I apologise for taking so long to reply to your post, I suspect that this thread will take more research than other threads and this is why I have been delaying my response. Hopefully I have the time now to focus here.

My main problem with carbon dating is not one based on religious bias, but on scientific principles. Often when we measure modern rates , we assume these rates have applied to the past. Apparently carbon dating has been adjusted for the past strength of the magnetic field, but I am wondering how this is done, and if a proper relationship has been established between fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field and the production of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known – while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]"

The strength of a magnet is directly related to its "magnetic moment",McElhinny and Senanayake discovered that 2000 years ago the earth's dipole moment was 50% higher than today, indicating a significantly stronger magnetic field back then. Since then the following study showed that the magnetic dipole moment was twice as strong 2000 years ago :
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000GeoJI.140..158Y, and then weak back in the 5000/6000 bp period. This article from Scripps Institution claims an approximate 35 % increase for the period 1000bp until 3000 bp: http://igpphome.ucsd.edu/...ublications/Preprints/dipole.pdf

We know from the Wikipedia article that changes to the magnetic field cause "significant variation in carbon-14 production rates" and "changes of the carbon cycle make these effects difficult to tease out". So the relationship between carbon production and the magnetic field is significant but the exact effects are unknown, and the magnetic field was significantly stronger 2000 years ago and earlier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : Adding further evidence

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-23-2013 11:33 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 08-29-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-29-2013 10:10 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:45 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 41 of 224 (705584)
08-29-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by JonF
08-29-2013 7:28 AM


He's already explained why you are wrong. You are ignoring calibration.

How can you calibrate if the relationship between carbon-14 production and the strength of the magnetic field has not been established. changes to the carbon cycle make the effects difficult to tease out:

As quoted already:
"The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 08-29-2013 7:28 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 08-29-2013 10:49 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 44 of 224 (705588)
08-29-2013 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
08-29-2013 7:51 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
But there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of any design or designer.

This thread is about dates. Other threads are about evolution itself. Kindly start a thread if you have come up with anything that proves evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 08-29-2013 7:51 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-29-2013 8:00 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 65 of 224 (705758)
09-01-2013 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coyote
08-29-2013 11:45 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
You are wrong.

The calibration curve I explained in a previous post takes a known event in the past (a tree ring, a varve, etc.) and radiocarbon dates it.

If that known event and the radiocarbon date do not agree, then we can apply a correction to the radiocarbon date to make them agree.

They have dated one particular type of tree ring, from standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California, going back some 12,000 years. The recent rings are dated in 1-year increments, while the older ones are dated in 10-year increments.

This produces a curve, which I have included in previous posts. Curves made from other materials are in close agreement. The maximum correction that is needed going back some 50,000 years is about 10 or 11%.

What this curve does is correct for the atmospheric fluctuations in C14 levels--no matter their cause!

So your question or objection is unfounded.

Thanks everyone for explaining about the calibration.

Suddenly the discussion in another thread about Rohl's revised chronology becomes highly relevant, because if carbon dating has been calibrated against incorrect recent historical dates, the extent of the carbon effect could be exponentially overemphasized for the earlier dates.

As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement. I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.
Varves are often mistaken as annual, when there is a possible tidal development. Lake Suigetsu is one example where on closer analysis the varves are more obviously tidal in nature. They were formed mainly by diatom blooms, some diatoms are freshwater diatoms, sensitive to salinity. Until a few hundred years ago, these lakes were mainly freshwater, but being so close to the ocean would have been affected by rising salinity every spring tide. The ~50 000 years of varves should quite simply be divided by 12.2 to reflect the 12 spring tides a year.

As for dendrochronolgy, the concept is often cited, but no convincing argument has been put forward for those periods when an overlap of ring sequences is not easily matched between trees. ie easy to make mistakes. Hoping someone can post a convincing set of data to show the reliability of dendrochronology. Also taking into account some trees show two rings per year if there are two rainfall seasons.

Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:45 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 2:18 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:14 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 70 of 224 (705799)
09-02-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
09-01-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Radiocarbon dates are calibrated against items of known age. Your objection about this Rohl fellow means nothing, as you would know if you had studied the literature dealing with calibration.

Which particular items? Can you post a link or excerpt so I can see if Rohl's revised dating would be relevant?

Sorry, wrong. Your "it is possible" means nothing unless backed up by some facts. You have presented no facts.

Fair enough. Please present your evidence that carbon dating has been calibrated to other specific known historical dates. Once you have presented that evidence I will see if it has been cherry picked.

Do you have any cite for this other than creationist literature? Otherwise, your argument is another "what if" that means nothing

I never consulted creationist literature at all. These lakes are all very close to the sea, look at the pictures:
http://www.env.go.jp/...d/pamph/ramsarpamphen/mikatagoko.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_intrusion
Groundwater intrusion is a common occurrence along coastlines, and owing to Lake Suigetsu's proximity to large bodies of saltwater its highly unlikely it was unaffected by the rising marine water table during spring tides.

http://www.phycologia.org/...s/10.2216/i0031-8884-42-3-292.1
Stephanodiscus populations were studied from a sediment core from Lake Suigetsu, central Japan. The cells were assignable to two modern freshwater species, S. suzukii and S. pseudosuzukii,

This study shows that freshwater diatoms are susceptible to salinity changes (one point they are proving is that diatom shells can be a good indicator of past salinity levels)
http://www.ndsu.edu/...es/g440/Fritzetal_199_Devils_Lake.pdf

Those diatom layers were assumed to be annual, but the studies do not incorporate an explanation for brackish water contamination during spring tides.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 71 of 224 (705800)
09-02-2013 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 6:03 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins calculated with a computer what the heavens were like back in the second millennium BC, accounting for the precession of the equinoxes, and found that Stonehenge had many significant alignments with various extreme positions of the sun and moon (for example, the hellstone marked the point where the sun rose on the first day of summer). Stonehenge fits the heavens as they were almost four thousand years ago, not as they are today, thereby cross-verifying the C-14 dates.

Interesting stuff, but hardly gaining widespread acceptance.
http://www.nybooks.com/...es/archives/1966/aug/18/stonehenge

Rohl's revised chronology is however gaining a foothold, albeit slowly. Its very difficult to argue against his conclusions, because he highlights obvious errors in current chronology, and these are easily understandable to the layman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 6:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 72 of 224 (705802)
09-02-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
09-01-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
So, your argument against dendrochronology rests on "they might have made mistakes?" That's it? Another "what if." Means nothing.

You are grasping at straws to keep your belief in ancient tribal myths alive in the face of clear evidence that disproves them. You have no real evidence, but just keep coming up with endless "what ifs," as if those "what ifs" were some form of evidence disproving what science has documented. (They aren't.)

If you don't post supporting evidence for radiocarbon dating being calibrated against dendrochronology I will regard your point as unverified. You brought it up to defend carbon dating as accurately calibrated, now kindly post your evidence of the relevance of dendrochronology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2013 9:23 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2013 11:10 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 73 of 224 (705803)
09-02-2013 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
09-02-2013 5:58 AM


The required error would have to be at least 800 percent. That would be enough to allow those cave paintings in France and Spain to be post flood. Because they surely could not have survived any world wide flood.

Could you kindly post your evidence for this comment? A small error in calibration in recent history (eg 300 year error) can effect the calibration formulas which in turn can effect dates exponentially. Carbon 14 is only found in small traces, you need to be extremely accurate on the traces of carbon 14 found in the 2000 BC to 4000 BC era to then accurately apply a formula to small traces of carbon in much earlier periods.

(exponential effect)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 5:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 10:34 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 75 of 224 (705805)
09-02-2013 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
09-02-2013 2:18 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for that. And explain how it's even possible given the results of the study (is it really plausible that ALL carbon dates are wrong by a factor of 12.2 ?). Don't forget to deal with the other data used as cross-checks. I don't think that Lake Soppensee is likely to be tidal !

Do you know how they checked that the varves in Lake Soppensee were annual? Carbon dating.... can you see the irony? Sure use carbon dating to calibrate carbon dating ....??

You can get daily tidal varves, spring tide varves, bi-annual rainfall varves, annual rainfall varves. You cannot use carbon dating to verify carbon dating, that makes no sense. Scientists have scanned the planet to find ways to verify their dates, nothing wrong with that, but then the studies must bear all scrutiny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 2:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:40 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 1:24 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 76 of 224 (705806)
09-02-2013 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by JonF
09-02-2013 8:36 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
A few calibrations against historical dates have been done. Almost all of carbon dating's calibration is done against other methods of dating the same samples, notably dendrochronology, varves, and U-Th dating of corals and speleotherms, δ[sup]18[/sup]O in ice cores. These other methods are all consilient; they give the same results to within a small margin of error. If you want to claim that varves aren't annual, you need to explain why dendrochronology and U-Th dating and δ[sup]18[/sup]O agree with it. And the same for all the methods. Given the consilience the simplest explanation is that the dating methods are all measuring the same thing, real time elapsed.

If you want to proffer another explanation, you must explain the consilience.

As for the data, you can have as much as you want from Radiocarbon vol 51 no 4 and IntCal09 Supplemental Data.

You should also look at Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1996 Progress Report

I enjoyed the Aegean link, these tree rings were dated to actual historical events. Unfortunately they used conventional dates to verify the ages of the trees, and so Rohl's revised chronology would effect those dates. Where tree rings patterns from all the different sites have a large and definite overlap with a sequence from at least one other site we would have a concrete chronology. Unfortunately the science of dendrochronology is not as exact.

The consilience is simply cherry picking. Have they listed every tree ring and every varve sequece, or just chosen the consilient ones, leaving the less easily undestood sequences for later analysis. This would an understandable approach, but unfortunately is not very scientific.

And so if there is doubt on each study, the consilience loses its significance in the light of the natural tendency to choose those studies that verify previous results.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 8:36 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-02-2013 9:49 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 83 by JonF, posted 09-02-2013 6:01 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 84 of 224 (706007)
09-05-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
09-02-2013 1:24 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
Admin suggested I ignore posts when evidence is not presented. This would encourage a more scientific discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2013 1:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2013 8:19 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 09-05-2013 8:40 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-05-2013 9:21 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2013 9:42 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 09-07-2013 2:08 PM mindspawn has 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