Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
70 online now:
ICANT, nwr (2 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,211 Year: 10,959/23,288 Month: 211/1,763 Week: 178/390 Day: 67/32 Hour: 1/2

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
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 1 of 224 (705124)
08-23-2013 11:33 AM


On the "Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?" thread, mindspawn posts the following:

Coyote writes:

The global flood is generally placed around 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
We have examples of Native American mtDNA types that are the same both before and after that date.

At On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska a skeleton was dated to 10,300 years ago, and a rare mtDNA type was found. This is D4h3.

In a publication a couple of years back, it was noted that 47 living individuals had been found with that same haplotype. They were found along the west coasts of North and South America.

If a flood had occurred that haplotype would have been wiped out and replaced by Near Eastern mtDNA types.

That this didn't happen is another example of genetics disproving the YEC flood belief.

Coyote if you think about the logic of this argument of yours, the whole point is based on dating methods. Which is a separate argument to Bluegenes genetic argument.

I would say that man is post-flood, and due to incorrect dating methods was erroneously dated to 10300ya and instead was less than 4500ya. If you let me know how the fossil was dated we can delve into that aspect of it to see if I could be right. But you would have to open another thread for that because its irrelevant to this thread. Let me know if you do so.

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.

Please limit discussion to the era of modern humans, ca. 200,000 years. Leave out the Cambrian explosion, K-T boundary and similar arguments.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 5:48 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 148 by Ed67, posted 04-15-2014 8:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 165 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 11 of 224 (705258)
08-25-2013 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 3:16 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Have you any evidence that the dating methods used by science are wrong?

Now would be a perfect time to present it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 4:27 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 224 (705278)
08-25-2013 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 4:27 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
I believe the dating procedure is grounded in good science.

Thank you.

Back to the opening post:

Are there any others out there who wish to produce evidence showing the radiocarbon dating method is incorrect?

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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 4:27 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Ossat, posted 08-25-2013 10:44 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 224 (705295)
08-25-2013 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ossat
08-25-2013 10:44 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Have you got any evidence showing that the date of 10,300 years ago for the skeleton found in Southern Alaska is correct?

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?


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ossat, posted 08-25-2013 10:44 PM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Ossat, posted 08-26-2013 9:37 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 23 of 224 (705342)
08-26-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Ossat
08-26-2013 9:37 AM


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

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

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?

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.

You are the one espousing fringe ideas. Don't you think it would be best if you showed where the scientific community is wrong, rather than demanding 50+ years of research and evidence to be spoon-fed to you? (If you were really serious about your criticisms of radiocarbon dating you would already be familiar with the details of how it works, wouldn't you?)


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Ossat, posted 08-26-2013 9:37 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Ossat, posted 08-27-2013 9:41 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 28 of 224 (705440)
08-27-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Ossat
08-27-2013 9:41 AM


On C14 dating
Even if this texts is right, it is not proving anything in favor or against the radiocarbon method.

That article I cited was not intended to "prove" anything about the radiocarbon method. My citation was designed to show the silly mistakes creationists make when trying to do science, something for which they are usually completely unprepared.

...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?

If that were the case, you might have a point. However, the radiocarbon method, as it is currently used, does correct for atmospheric variation. It does so by comparing radiocarbon dates on items of known ages with radiocarbon ages themselves. In this manner the changes in C14 levels in the atmosphere are corrected for.

The items of known ages include tree-rings, varves, annular rings in corals, etc. Not surprisingly, the calibration curve for these various materials is in close agreement and if I remember correctly, the maximum correction is on the order of 11%.

This is what the calibration curve looks like:

Your comment is another example of creationists raising arguments against radiocarbon dating without knowing what they are talking about. The problem of atmospheric fluctuations was identified by scientists over 50 years ago and a calibration curve has been developed to deal with it.

Here is a good article dealing with the calibration curve (pdf format):

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

Coyote writes:

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/

The ICR article relies on the RATE study, in which creationists spent over a million dollars and managed to duplicate the results science has been coming up with for years--which they still wouldn't accept. Here are a couple of reviews of that study:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac

From the conclusion of this article:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. ...

...claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems.

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? (part 1)

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? (part 2)

The conclusion of this article (at the end of part 2) includes the following:

Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.

Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject radiometric dating? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more. Thus, we faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research simply does not meet the burden of proof necessary to abandon mainstream science.

In summary, it looks like your two objections to the radiocarbon method are both without value.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Ossat, posted 08-27-2013 9:41 AM Ossat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by JonF, posted 08-27-2013 11:27 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 48 of 224 (705605)
08-29-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mindspawn
08-29-2013 6:46 AM


Objection unfounded
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.

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.

You can google this information for yourself; just stay away from those creationist websites, as their essays on this subject are among the most inaccurate things they produce.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2013 6:03 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 224 (705619)
08-29-2013 9:36 PM


Any more?
Any other objections to radiocarbon dating?

This is your big chance!


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 52 of 224 (705624)
08-29-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ossat
08-29-2013 9:59 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
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.

First, you cannot use a mythological event to calibrate the radiocarbon curve. That is akin to using Mickey Mouse to attest to the existence of quantum mechanics.

Second, even if there had been such a flood ca. 4,350 years ago, as biblical scholars claim, your comment that pre-flood radiocarbon dates show show "infinite or tents [sic] of thousand year old dates" is easily disproved. In the areas I work, there is a smooth "curve" of radiocarbon dates back past 10,000 years, reflecting a growing aboriginal population. There is no evidence of a flood, or a sudden increase toward infinity in the radiocarbon 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?

"Now it appears"? This is something that has been known to everyone but creationists for over 50 years.

...how can we really 'know' the age of things that are supposed to be tents [sic] of thousand years old?

Simple, you count the tree rings or varves.

In the case of tree rings, there is an additional confirmation. The variation in the rings comes from climatic and seasonal variations. If they are accurate the rings should reflect past volcanic events, such as eruptions of Mt. Etna. This has been found to be the case.

So, all you have to do is find a series of trees that have overlapping rings going back thousands of years and you can find all the information you are looking for. If I remember correctly, the standing dead bristlecone pines of southern California go back over 12,000 years, and a species of oak in Europe takes the calibration curve back past 20,000 years. And this is not even counting corals and ice cores and varves, which have similar long histories, taking the calibration curve back toward 50,000 years. And (sorry creationists), those different materials all produce similar curves! I posted an image upthread. Did you examine that, and the article it came from? Here it is in case you haven't been able to find it:

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf

The same author has a lot of other interesting papers:

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/publications/

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.

You have yet to show any inaccuracy in the radiocarbon method other than the inaccuracy of creationists' beliefs. Take a look at the literature and get back to me (but please avoid the creationists's websites, as they are literally full of lies and misrepresentations).


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ossat, posted 08-29-2013 9:59 PM Ossat has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 66 of 224 (705760)
09-01-2013 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 9:07 PM


Re: Objection unfounded
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.

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.

As for other dating methods, its possible they were cherry picked for their apparent agreement.

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

I have yet to see a convincing argument for either varves or dendrochronology being convincing arguments to strengthen current dating assumptions.

From your responses, you couldn't see evidence if it contradicted your a priori beliefs, no matter what the evidence.

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.

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

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 unless someone can post a convincing set of data.

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.)

Sadly, you remind me of this fellow:


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 9:07 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 72 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:27 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 224 (705818)
09-02-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by mindspawn
09-02-2013 8:27 AM


Re: Objection unfounded
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.

Here is the overview. Look up the rest of it yourself.

http://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm

With all of your "what if" objections you are rapidly becoming a waste of our time, particularly because you have shown that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. As per my signature line, your belief is preventing you from learning.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mindspawn, posted 09-02-2013 8:27 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 90 of 224 (706354)
09-09-2013 8:13 PM


Mindspawn keeps ducking, dodging, and weaving
You keep asking for more and more evidence, while denying, obfuscating, or ignoring any evidence we provide.

So, here is some evidence. Let's see if you can deal with it without just trying to hand-wave it away.

Remember, your credibility (what little you have left) depends on the evidence you provide. Just coming up with "what-ifs" is not evidence. Your religious beliefs are not evidence.

====================

Tree-ring Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt

R.M. CLARK & C. RENFREW

Abstract: The historical calendar of Ancient Egypt is the only independent chronology for testing the bristlecone pine calibration of the radiocarbon time scale from 3000 to 1800 BC. Here a statistical approach is used to compare the functions relating the Egyptian historical dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates and the bristlecone pine tree-ring dates to the corresponding radiocarbon dates, and it is concluded that the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Egypt do not differ significantly from the historical dates in the time period considered, although the errors associated with these preclude a precise comparison. The accord gives qualified support for both systems and invalidates some published objections to the use of a calibrated time scale in prehistoric archaeology.

http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v243/n5405/abs/243266a0.html

====================

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? An article abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1.

The concluding paragraph:

Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method

Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocarbon over time. (See How does the radiocarbon dating method work?) Dendrochronology thus provides an essential service to radiocarbon dating, the major method used to date archaeological remains, guaranteeing its accuracy throughout the period of interest to biblical chronology.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/...ers/c14_treerings.php

====================

Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale

V. C. LaMarche Jr. & T. P. Harlan

Abstract: An independently developed tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine in the White Mountains, California, provides a basis for testing the accuracy of dendrochronological calibration of the radiocarbon time scale. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings in this species are true annual rings. Internal evidence and cross-chronology comparison indicate that there is no error in calendar dates assigned to wood specimens for comparative radiocarbon analysis, at least back to 3535 B.C.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...9/JC078i036p08849/abstract


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 3:30 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 224 (706413)
09-11-2013 9:53 AM


Bump
Bump for Mindspawn.

I posted some evidence above. Any interest in refuting it, or presenting your evidence against radiocarbon dating?


Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2013 10:26 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 224 (708476)
10-10-2013 2:04 PM


Bump for Mindspawn
Bump for Mindspawn.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 224 (708661)
10-11-2013 10:51 PM


Summary to date
This thread was created to allow Mindspan and other creationists to post their scientific evidence refuting radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating.

So far, Mindspawn has 15 posts:

Of these, eight are irrelevant or off topic.

One was simply a useless and unevidenced “what-if” that meant nothing.

Three were demands for “proof” that were either not pertinent, or "proof" that his whimsical speculations were wrong ("Oh, yeah? Prove that the sun rises in the east!"). If he holds true to form, no amount of "proof" or evidence would make the slightest difference in his beliefs, and

Only three contain realistic objections that have been easily explained and refuted.

That's about par for the course. Creationists are all up in arms against evolution and any field of science that they perceive as supporting evolution, but when it comes to providing actual evidence against those fields of science, or in support of their claims, they are generally quite lacking.

So let's resume this thread with substantive claims by creationists, with actual evidence that modern dating techniques are incorrect.

And again, no P-T boundary, Cambrian explosion, evolution, or any other off-topic rabbit holes.

If you have evidence pertaining to modern dating methods, let's have it.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 10-12-2013 11:09 AM Coyote 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