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
Ossat
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 18 of 224 (705293)
08-25-2013 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
08-25-2013 7:33 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Not yet. Have you got any evidence showing that the date of 10,300 years ago for the skeleton found in Southern Alaska is correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 7:33 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 11:12 PM Ossat has responded

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 20 of 224 (705328)
08-26-2013 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
08-25-2013 11:12 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Yes.

Check out the scientific literature. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Back to the original post: Is any creationist able to provide evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?

Yes, check out alternative scientific literature. I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Alternatively, you could start explaining why do you think radiocarbon dating is accurate. If you are not willing to show evidence in favor, how can you expect to receive evidence against?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 11:12 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 10:04 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2013 10:19 AM Ossat has responded
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 08-26-2013 5:22 PM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 08-26-2013 7:51 PM Ossat has not yet responded

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


Message 26 of 224 (705438)
08-27-2013 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
08-26-2013 10:19 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I have. Extensively. Its nonsense based on belief and wishful thinking. In many cases the claims made by creationists are based on silly errors due to their lack of understanding of science and how it works. Here is a classic example:

http://blog.darwincentral.org/...e%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-v

Even if this texts is right, it is not proving anything in favor or against the radiocarbon method. while it concentrates in the very last bit of the creationist text quoted there, it ignores the point that they make, which is that the ratio between c-12 and c-14 has been changing and increasing the proportion of c-14, assuming that the ratio has been relatively constant over the last thousands of years causes the samples to appear much older than they really are, what you have to say about that?

The scientific model surrounding radiocarbon dating is the standard, the norm, the approach accepted worldwide. It has been researched for over 50 years and the scientific community is in agreement on its methods, uses, and accuracy. Tens of thousands of articles have been written about radiocarbon dating over the years, testing it and refining it.

Not everything that has been written agrees with that, and not all scientists agree, here's one example:

http://www.icr.org/article/117/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2013 10:19 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-27-2013 9:46 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2013 10:40 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 08-28-2013 1:05 AM Ossat has responded

  
Ossat
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 03-29-2013


(1)
Message 51 of 224 (705620)
08-29-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pressie
08-28-2013 1:05 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
I read that article and that author was dishonest as well. One example from that article:

quote: Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

Nope. Uniformatarianism does not 'assume' that at all.

From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:

quote:Uniformitarianism:

(a) The fundamental principle or doctrine that geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that “the present is the key to the past”. The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies.; The term was originated by Lyell (1830), who applied it to a concept by Hutton (1788). Cf. catastrophism. Syn: actualism: principle of uniformity.

(b) The logic and method by which geologists attempt to reconstruct the past using the principle of uniformitarianism.

So, it seems as if the term uniformatarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Not what Baumgardner claimed it is. He told an untruth.

The result is that both references to creationist websites given so far in this thread indicate that those creationists tried to mislead people.

I've seen many creationist 'articles' in my lifetime. I've never seen one where creationists are not very, very economical with the truth. You always find at least one falsehood.

I don’t see any dishonesty in Baumgardner’s definition on uniformitarianism: “the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time”, it’s pretty much the same as the one presented by Gary, Macafee and Wolf: “geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today”. Yeah, they also add: “The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies”, but Baumgardner is not implying otherwise, in fact Gary et al are implying that changes not happening at an uniform rate and “minor catastrophies” aren’t relevant enough to affect the uniformitarian principle that “past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today”.

Opposite to that, Baumgardner and other creationists claim that you cannot use uniformitarianism because there is a global catastrophy in the way, namely, the biblical flood. This would have affected the Earth in a way that present events cannot be extrapolated to the past, and that includes the rate of c-14 to c-12, which would have been so minimal that radiocarbon dates for pre-flood samples show infinite or tents of thousand year old dates.

Now it appears that it is possible to calibrate radiocarbon dates by comparing with things of “known” age, like tree rings, varves, etc, but how can we really “know” the age of things that are supposed to be tents of thousand years old?. I think the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating is being calibrated with equally inaccurate stuff, I will have a look at this calibration method and will be back to discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 08-28-2013 1:05 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2013 11:25 PM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2013 1:27 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Pressie, posted 08-30-2013 4:42 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 08-30-2013 7:21 AM Ossat has not yet responded
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 08-30-2013 8:05 AM Ossat 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