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,....
They tried to deliberately mislead us. Firstly by providing a false statement and then not providing the sources so that it can be easily checked. Dishonest. Not even worth considering the rest. They will tell untruths again.
Not everything that has been written agrees with that, and not all scientists agree, here's one example:
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:
(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.
Seeing that this is off-topic, I’ll only write something on it quickly.
What Baumgardner wrote:
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
Let me point out one word he wrote down: SLOW.
The word ‘slow’ in his description of uniformitarianism should have given you a hint. Baumgardner was dishonest. It simply is not true. Huge difference between what he claims about it and what the word means in reality.
Uniformatarianism does NOT imply ‘slow’. It is a conclusion that the earth’s surface can be explained by uniform processes. They can be very fast, very slow and everything in between, just as we see happening today. Read that reference to what is written in the Glossary of Geology again.
Lots of other falsehoods in that sentence from Baumgardner as well. Read some geologic literature on uniformatarianism. Avoid religious websites who use sciencey-sounding words to pretend that they do science.
The author of that propaganda piece has a PhD in Geophysics. This means that he was not trained in carbon dating, but that he knows a little bit about Geology. Yet, the author was deliberately dishonest about a basic geological term. Why is he so dishonest about it? An agenda perhaps?
I stopped reading that article after that, because I realise that he’s going to tell untruths about carbon dating, something I don’t know much about.
I rather accept the findings of the tens of thousands of specialists on carbon dating (from all over the world; all nations, religions, non-religion, colours, creeds, etc.), who publish their research in the appropriate scientific journals.
I don’t believe dishonest people, with an agenda, writing untruths about subjects both inside and outside their fields of expertise, on fundamentalist religious websites. Then they pretend that it is ‘science’. No thanks.
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.
Yes, I know. I found references to anti-scientific fundamentalist religious websites in this thread very disturbing. No facts provided. Just untruths. They do the opposite of science.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Baumgardner.
It sure is. He's an Electrical Engineer who obtained a PhD in Geophysics and tells untruths about basic geology.
He's published more in the peer-reviewed literature than probably any other creationist
Well, I don't think that a creationist writing 'more in peer-reviewed literature' than any other creationist really is something to be proud of. Anyone can start from nothing. And keep on doing nothing.
He really has no excuse, and particularly not lack of talent or knowledge, for his creationist efforts.
The consilience is merely because of cherry picking. Some varves are formed from spring tides, some from daily tides, some from annual weather patterns. If a certain sequence is misinterpreted, such misinterpretation will be accepted if it fits in with other dating assumptions. Unintentional cherry picking causes the consilience.
That's the wonderful thing about the scientific method. If you, mindspawn, think that samples are cherry-picked, you yourself can go and get samples. And get them dated. And publish your research in scientific journals. For everyone else to look at. And other researchers can try to show that you're wrong. By doing it themselves, too.
Just one little bit of warning: reading creationist websites won't give you any expertise in any of the dating methods. You will just repeat their stupidity and also do ridiculous things such as trying to carbon date fossilised material and diamonds. They might as well have put on their clown suits and stuck on their red noses before they even started their 'research'.
Coyote, I've started reading up on Lake Suigetsu. It's really interesting. Do you know if those annual layers are still being deposited? I couldn't find a source discussing that. From the photos and from things I read it seems as if it is possible. Do human activities (such as boat engins) have an influence on formation of such fragile sedimentary layers in that lake ?
According to physicists the dating techniques are perfectly good, an assertion which they base on completely different laws of nature from those governing evolution.
It's even more than that. According to the published research, all those different types of physicists, all those different types of chemists, cosmologists, mineralogists, crystallographers, geochemists, geochronologists, sedimentologists, other geologists etc., find the dating techniques of 'rocks' are very reliable.
It's called conscilience. Then those life science scientists also provide evidence for very similar answers.
Some of my forebearers were what you would call Bushmen. Those relatively small guys were digging for roots in the Kalahari. Getting sea food on beaches. And specialists in hunting antelopes. No flood legends involved. They have been here for at least 40 000 years.