Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 6:51 AM
24 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 125 of 305 (711818)
11-22-2013 3:25 PM


Cheers for RAZD
I would like to add my appreciation for RAZD's expertise and efforts. I have been following the debate with interest. Well done RAZD!
    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 162 of 305 (712213)
11-29-2013 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Coyote
11-28-2013 11:56 PM


Re calibration
Hi Coyote,
I wonder what people like Mindspawn think is going on with the calibration tables. Why would the tables be produced, and modified as better information is available, if they were not at least reasonably accurate? Given the reasonable correlation of C14 dates and dendro with Egyptian history, there is not much time to the Flood to fit in all the extra tree rings required, let alone fitting in Suigetsu. Mindspawn should show us his calibration curve to see what C14 dates of say 10,000 and 30,000 years would represent in his scheme.
What I have seen on Creationist sites, they don't even try to address the problem of correlations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2013 11:56 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 203 of 305 (712336)
12-02-2013 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Coyote
12-02-2013 9:36 PM


Mindspawn's efforts
Hi Coyote.
You have articulated my thoughts much better than I could.
A couple of questions for you if I may, to help me in discussions with YEC.
Do I understand IntCal 13 correctly in that it is a table to refer to in order to convert a raw C14 date to the currently best evidenced true date?
In looking up IntCal I saw a reference that the CIO curve previously used was off because they did not consider the effect of earthquakes on Suigetsu varves. Do you know by how much it was out?
In addition my further appreciation to RAZD for his diligence and patience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2013 9:36 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 12:17 AM Pollux has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 204 of 305 (712338)
12-03-2013 12:04 AM


The bliss of ignorance
A great quote I have just seen.
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep"
    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 207 of 305 (712344)
12-03-2013 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Coyote
12-03-2013 12:17 AM


Re: Mindspawn's efforts
Thank you for that.
650 C14 dates! A YEC assures me that 98% of radiometric dates are rejected and only the 2% "right" dates are kept. That means you have spent about 650X50X500 - about $16,000,000 on C14 dating. Must be money in archaeology! (ducks head under desk to avoid having throat torn out by irate lupine)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 12:17 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2013 8:29 AM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 229 of 305 (712469)
12-04-2013 6:50 AM


Mindspawn's springtide diatom blooms
The last time I was at the seaside, the tide came in and went out twice a day with a bigger variation between high and low than between spring and neap high tide. But leaving that aside, MS wants enough salt to enter the lake to stop the diatoms growing, then to clear back to fresh to allow growth, and this to happen on a two week cycle. Any salt water that did get in would layer at the bottom or the lake and not affect the upper areas for the main diatom growth anyway. This is not clutching at straws; it is blindly grasping at rainbows!
    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 230 of 305 (712470)
12-04-2013 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Pressie
12-04-2013 12:46 AM


Re: Comic relief
Sean Pitman is an ardent YEC Seventh-day Adventist. He has a website called educate truth and seems to feel he has a mission to keep all SDAs faithful to YEC.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 12:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 7:18 AM Pollux has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(3)
Message 240 of 305 (712530)
12-04-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Pressie
12-04-2013 7:18 AM


Re: Comic relief
That is very sad. I was YEC for years but wondered why the scientists were so sure of long ages. I was able to study the evidence and go where it led. (Thank you RAZD) I see many YEC that have the view of scientists that they are seeing just what they want to see and/or are ignoring contrary results and/or are led by Satan. The few that I have been able to present any evidence to just retreat to saying they will believe the Bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 12-04-2013 7:18 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 10:28 PM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 242 of 305 (712548)
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Consilience
Does anyone know of any serious or halfway serious attempt by YECs, especially ICR etc, to explain the consilience of C14 with dendro and lake varves? Just saying trees can form more than one ring a year or varves aren't necessarily annual doesn't cut it. Also any explanation of why seamount chain dating is consistent with plate movement, supporting long age RM dating.
Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by JonF, posted 12-05-2013 7:07 AM Pollux has not yet responded
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:01 AM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(3)
Message 279 of 305 (713295)
12-11-2013 6:43 PM


Lake Suigetsu
I'm trying to imagine salt washing in on each spring tide sufficient to kill the algae, then clearing to allow more growth, but like Tanipteryx, I'm getting a headache.
Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2013 6:57 PM Pollux has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-11-2013 6:59 PM Pollux has not yet responded
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2013 10:29 AM Pollux has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 285 of 305 (713331)
12-12-2013 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by JonF
12-11-2013 5:20 PM


Mindie thinks he can explain the annual layers, but doesn't seem to realise he then has to explain why the C14 dates vary in almost direct proportion with the varve count,and indeed with depth of deposit in other areas without annual layers such as Lynch's crater in Queensland. Also I hope his reference to carbon in the deeper layers was meant to refer to C14. He makes it sound as though a smaller amount of carbon would give a larger age.
I remain gobsmacked by RAZD's thoroughness and patience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by JonF, posted 12-11-2013 5:20 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 293 of 305 (713399)
12-12-2013 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by NoNukes
12-12-2013 10:29 AM


Re: Lake Suigetsu
Thanks for that explanation; I feel much better now. But why is my BS alarm ringing?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2013 10:29 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 300 of 305 (714872)
12-28-2013 7:59 PM


Lake Suigetsu
I tried looking up the lake at CMI - no results.

At ICR 3 hits:

One mentioned the large C14 fluctuations during the last glacial as reported in an article in Nature. They seemed to say this somehow made the study unreliable.

One damned the study of the varves for not considering the Flood as an explanation.

The last mentioned Suigetsu to show that C14 dates did not agree exactly with the count, and needed to be calibrated., which of course is a major reason for the study of the lake.

Interestingly, when I returned to the ICR site to check further, I could get no hits for Suigetsu!
I don't have access to the article in Nature mentioned above, but I guess it was discussing the plateau in C14 ages then.

It is a pity we seem to have lost mindspawn.


    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 302 of 305 (714932)
12-29-2013 7:28 PM


Lake Suigetsu
I revisited CMI and found an article by Woodmorappe attempting to debunk conventional dating. He referenced an article in Science 292(5526) 2453-2458, 29 June, 2001, and stated it showed up to a 10.000 year discrepancy between the dates from Suigetsu and C14 in the 10,000 to 40.000 year range. I know a lot of work has been done since, but does anyone have access to the original article to comment?
Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Coragyps, posted 12-29-2013 7:49 PM Pollux has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 304 of 305 (714945)
12-29-2013 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Coragyps
12-29-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Lake Suigetsu
Thanks Coragyps and RAZD.
I have it now and will read, but wise comments are always welcome!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Coragyps, posted 12-29-2013 7:49 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019