Coyote pretty much just performed a first round knockout.
I find it absolutely fascinating that people can still dispute this sort of thing. Radioactive decay rates are a completely well understood phenomenon. It is a consequence of the weak interaction and is a mechanism that has been powering our nuclear reactors since the early part of the 20th century. What is it about Carbon 14 decay rates that gets their panties in a bunch?
And even if the Carbon dating wasn't quite as reliable, what about all the other radioactive dating methods like potassium argon? Are they ALL wrong?
"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
The real obstacle is this debate is that mindspawn will not hold up his end. He is not going to show the math (or the evidence) that demonstrates that he any scenario he proposes actually happened. He believes that expressing personal doubt is sufficient for him, but not for his opponent.
And therein lies the major issue as it pertains to any debate with Creationists or religious apologists. In the end, the debate becomes entirely one-sided. Those of us in the science camp have this inherent need to make sense. We provide data to corroborate our views and in response, we either get denial or outright fabrications of information as a response.
I have yet to see any debate of this nature where the creationist actually produced proper, peer reviewed information that was not in any way outright fabricated or based on incorrect assertions. Many of them get their data from Conservapedia or the many lectures of convicted fraudster Kent Hovind or his idiot son, much of which is either woefully skewed or downright wrong.
I never did interact with Aaron. I did glance at the thread and yes, I agree that at least he tried.
In most cases, what I end up seeing is a continuous back and forth to the point where the creationist is finally talked into a corner. At which time, they generally rant or come up with some excuse of why they cannot continue. And the discussion ends at that point.
I'm not sure what Coyote's strategy is, but it's obvious that mindspawn can't comprehend what Coyote's written
It's not necessarily a question of comprehension: it is merely a case of extreme denial.
How difficult is it to grasp a graph like the one Coyote put forth? It has scattered data points and a line of best fit. This is high school stuff.
The issue does not come down to a disagreement between peers: this is a seasoned professional having a discussion with a zealot. As evidenced by the most recent post by mindspawn, he disagrees with the graph and he indicated he will disagree with virtually ANY piece of data put forth that counters his dogmatic belief. There is no real 'debate' in this case, although I think we all realized that from the get go.
Mindspawn is referring to the agreement of C-14 dating with tree rings. His proposal is that scientists are mistakenly identifying some rainfall induced tree rings with annual rings
Mindspawn's original objection to C-14 as a reliable dating method was that they leveraged what he considers unreliable ancillary calibration methods; i.e. tree rings, lake varves, etc.
Coyote responded by saying: Ok, if you have issue with those calibration methods, let us remove them and focus on the C-14 dating mechanism itself. He then produced a graph showing C-14 decay rates over a particular timeframe, representing the half life decay of the isotope. Mindspawn responded by going back to the tree rings and lake varves.
From my understanding, Coyote performed a concession by ignoring those things which Mindspawn had issue with and focused solely on just C-14 itself. By doing so, he eliminated the original points that Mindspawn did not agree with. In turn, Mindspawn simply ignored the graph, stated that he didn't agree with the output displayed and claimed it was 'circular reasoning'. Which is false. The graph is the result of experimentation. It was evidence leading to a conclusion. Circular reasoning is coming to your conclusion first and then finding evidence to support it. You know, like assuming the bible is the word of god and infallible and then cherry picking evidence to support that claim while ignoring evidence to counter that claim.
Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed minor typos and grammar errors.
Just blurt out that magnetic fields affect decay rates without the least bit of poking around
Whether we look at Thorium 230, Uranium 234, Uranium 238 or carbon dating, we have the same problem that the magnetic field effect on radiocarbon and radioactive elements is largely unknown and has to be calibrated against an additional source of accurate dates
Wow. Just wow. I almost got an ice-cream headache reading that.