Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:16 AM
22 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 121 of 207 (502236)
03-10-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
03-10-2009 12:36 PM


Re: LIAR
The word 'LIAR', when associated with a member of this board, creates more problems than it solves. Please avoid using it.

By all means show that your opponent is incorrect.
By all means say that they are ignoring refutations.
By all means point out that they are repeating claims that are under debate without providing additional argumentation or evidence.

Even if you think you can demonstrate entirely without any doubt that a member is intentionally saying things which they know to be false, don't use the term.

Randman was particularly fond of calling his opponents liars and similar. Randman got permanently suspended.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2009 12:36 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2009 1:14 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 207 (502244)
03-10-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AdminModulous
03-10-2009 12:42 PM


Re: LIAR
Where exactly is the accusation of lying?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AdminModulous, posted 03-10-2009 12:42 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Jack, posted 03-10-2009 1:14 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2009 1:49 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 123 of 207 (502246)
03-10-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-10-2009 1:14 PM


Re: LIAR
It's the subtitle to the post, Ned.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2009 1:14 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 124 of 207 (502248)
03-10-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
I am glad to see that you at least recognize that scientific study and inquiry were used by this creationist and that you want to look at it based on scientific merits. Knock yourself out and explain in scientific terms why these examples and explanations are wrong if you want to. Remeber that i am just happy that you would come this far.

Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.

Not entirely of course - his actual intention was to nudge you towards supporting your assertions with something more than "Kelly says so." He gave you a Creationist paper to support your assertion that Creation Science follows the scientific method.

Unfortunately, Creation Science does not follow the scientific method. It appears to for laypersons, because it engages in seeking evidence and testing and uses the same words that science uses. But the methodology is flawed from the outset - Creation Science is not about following the evidence wherever it leads; it's about supporting a conclusion arrived at before the evidence is even examined. The evidence is then "interpreted" to fit the conclusion. The scientific method would require that we alter the conclusion to fit the evidence - ergo, Creation Science is not following the scientific method.

I'll demonstrate using your paper:

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰. This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

It sure sounds like science, doesn't it? They speak of specific methodology for carrying out their experiment, and use all teh right terminology. This is a real experiment - I don't doubt that they actually carbon-dated this wood.

However, botht he experiment and the methodology are critically flawed.

First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old - after that point the results are useless. This experiment was set up as a "blind" test, where the lab didn't know how old the sample was supposed to be - they were simply told to date it with C14. This means that for any sample older than 25,000 years, the test is doomed to give meaningless results from the start.

Radiological dating can use many other isotopes, and the correct isotope to use is dependent on the age of the sample. In this case, carbon dating is like using a microscope to read - you're zoomed in too far to see the letters. The blind nature of the test ensures that the lab wouldn't be able to point this out.

The paper tries to assert that, if the sample were millions of years old, all of the original carbon would have disappeared from the sample - but this doesn't address the fact that you cannot use C14 to date samples older than around 25,000 years. Period.

The larger flaws in the paper come later, however, and are rooted in a flawed methodology that does not follow the scientific method:

Conclusions
This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.

As an aside, observe the direct contradiction in the bolded sections. Is this a "legitimate" age or not?

But mroe to the point, this conclusion depends on the assertions that:

1) a global Flood actually occurred
2) the sample was buried catastrophically in sand in that Flood
3) a stronger magnetic field existed, altering the radiocarbon results
4) Because the Flood "buried a lot of carbon," the C14 results were further thrown off

This is a clear example of "interpreting" the evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

In this experiment, the correct conclusion would have been to confirm the C14 dating through other, independent means: examining the geological strata it was extracted from, and using other radioisotopes for other radiological dating methods that overlap the age determined by the lab to confirm that the results were accurate. The unsupported assumptions I listed above should never have been made.

This paper used a dating method that any scientist or even layperson familiar with the limitations of radiocarbon dating can see is completely flowed. Further, in the "conclusion," the paper explains away the fact that the C14 dating did not match with even a Flood date by making unsupported claims that the C14 content of the sample would have been altered by that Flood - without providing the mechanism by which this would happen, or even supporting the idea that the Flood happened.

Their conclusion is only valid if you assume that the Young Earth/Creation/Flood model is correct, AND you ignore the sloppy methodology of teh experiment.

This is not science, Kelly. This is apologetics - the practice of trying to support a pre-existing belief. It looks like science, but then, it's supposed to: it's a con game, intended to sucker in laypersons who don't have the scientific background to realize they've been had.

Like you, Kelly.

That's the reason this "paper" isn't published in the mainstream scientific literature: it's not science, and would never survive an honest peer review.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:01 AM Kelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 2:21 PM Rahvin has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 125 of 207 (502256)
03-10-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
03-10-2009 1:14 PM


Re: LIAR
It was me in my last post. I changed the subtitle to remove the word.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2009 1:14 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 126 of 207 (502258)
03-10-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
03-10-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[enable-creationist-writing-style]

Coyote writes:

That's too easy.

A good look at Snelling's claims can be found in the following:

Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?

The sample wasn't wood at all. It was an iron concretion with contamination.

Bzzzt! You lose. An article from 2003 cannot possibly be making comments about a 2008 paper five years later.

Please try again.

[/enable-creationist-writing-style]

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2009 11:19 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 127 of 207 (502260)
03-10-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Stile
03-10-2009 11:30 AM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Hi Stile,

Yes, Ar/Ar dating and radiocarbon dating are both types of radiometric dating.

[enable-creationist-thinking-style]

Stile writes:

How can the "radiocarbon age determined by the laboratory must be accurate" be true if we are concluding that "all radiometric dating is unreliable?"

It's only unreliable when misinterpreted by those using the much discredited "ancient earth" world view. Once you interpret the data properly, radiometric dating is fairly reliable. It extrapolates from known physical processes to derive age dates for time of formation, but those who hold the reins of power within science keep these processes from being interpreted properly. Creation scientists understand how to properly interpret the data.

The material found in the formation was wood. It was dated to around 45,000 years old using radiocarbon dating. The encasing material was dated to millions of years old. Obviously these dates contradict one another, but a proper analysis yields consistent dates around the time of the flood.

[/enable-creationist-thinking-style]

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 11:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 03-10-2009 2:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 128 of 207 (502265)
03-10-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Percy
03-10-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Creations-Thinking-Style Percy writes:

The material found in the formation was wood. It was dated to around 45,000 years old using radiocarbon dating. The encasing material was dated to millions of years old. Obviously these dates contradict one another, but a proper analysis yields consistent dates around the time of the flood.

Let's see where the rest of my confusion lies:

"The material found in the formation was wood."
-as shown in the paper provided

"It was dated to around 45,000 years old using radiocarbon dating."
-as shown in the paper provided

"The encasing material was dated to millions of years old."
-as shown in the paper provided

"Obviously these dates contradict one another..."
-as shown in the paper provided

"...a proper analysis yields consistent dates around the time of the flood"
-???

What does "a proper analysis" entail?
Was "a proper analysis" discussed in the paper? I don't remember seeing it.
How do we know that "a proper analysis" (whatever it is) is not "unreliable" in some other fashion?
Does "a proper analysis" have potential errors like radiometric dating has potential errors? That is, the potential errors of radiometric dating were identified and accomodated for in the paper provided. Does "a proper analysis" also have potential errors that need to be identified and controlled?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 2:05 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 129 of 207 (502267)
03-10-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rahvin
03-10-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[enable-creationist-style]

Rahvin writes:

Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.

On the contrary, it is you evolutionists who are being set up for a fall as your untruths are revealed. For example:

First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old...

Misinformation like this reveals just how desperate you evolutionists are as you cling to your outmoded theories. Even Wikipedia knows better than you, this is from the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating:

Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.

While it is theoretically possible for organic material to date as old as 60,000 years, the reality is that the world could not be much more than around 6000 years old, and radiocarbon dating bears this out.

[/enable-creatist-style]

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 1:18 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 3:09 PM Percy has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 130 of 207 (502269)
03-10-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
03-10-2009 2:21 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
Ooooh, a Devil's Advocate!

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Kelly, I very much hate to break it to you, but Percy was setting you up.


On the contrary, it is you evolutionists who are being set up for a fall as your untruths are revealed. For example:

quote:
First, as others have mentioned, radiocarbon dating cannot be used on samples more than around 25,000 years old...

Misinformation like this reveals just how desperate you evolutionists are as you cling to your outmoded theories. Even Wikipedia knows better than you, this is from the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article on radiocarbon dating:

quote:
Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.

While it is theoretically possible for organic material to date as old as 60,000 years, the reality is that the world could not be much more than around 6000 years old, and radiocarbon dating bears this out.

While I thank you for pointing out my error, the actual date of teh sample according to Kelly's paper (I believe they called it the "evolutionary" age, which made me chuckle) is orders of magnitude greater. 25,000 years vs 60,000 years is inconsequential when the actual age is in the millions of years. The point remains that the sample is too old to be accurately measured using C14 dating, and the "researchers" knew or should have known that basic fact when setting up this experiment. It was a sham.

I'd strongly suggest that you read the remainder of the C14 article on Wikipedia, particularly the sections discussing Calibration and Measurement and Scales. Apparently Wikipedia also knows more about C14 dating than Kelly's Creation Scientists.

Further, you've continued to make the assertion that the Earth is only about 6000 years old without supporting that assertion.

More importantly and related to the topic, you've still failed to address the fact that the methodology used in the paper was one of apologetics, that of attempting to support a preconceived conclusion, and not an application fo the scientific method. The conclusions of the paper dismissed even their own results while attempting to handwave the discrepancy away with unsupported assertions of Floods and a young Earth and without and explanation of a mechanism that would account for such discrepancies even were the assertions factual. The conclusion did not follow from the evidence - the experiment was purposefully rigged to give an inaccurate reading by using the wrong tool, and then this "evidence" was "interpreted" to validate the conclusion that existed before the experiment was even conceived. Creation Science remains not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 2:21 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 03-10-2009 3:34 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 03-11-2009 8:40 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 131 of 207 (502274)
03-10-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rahvin
03-10-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating is Unreliable
[creationist]

Rahvin writes:

Ooooh, a Devil's Advocate!

Devil's advocate? Sir, I am *God's* advocate, not that he needs one. At end times you will be judged, you would do well to remember that!

I am short of time right now, but I hope my able partner Kelly will soon post for you the truth about radiometric dating, such as that the evidence has always pointed to a young earth.

[/creationist]

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2009 3:09 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 132 of 207 (502276)
03-10-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kelly
03-10-2009 8:52 AM


Re: I just wanted to correct the misconception
that creation scientists aren't performing scientific experiments or studies using real scientific methods, etc. I am so tired of people actually thinking they are saying something true when they claim that creation science is about religion or theology or whatever other false claim they love to fall back on when challenged by creationists. That's all. Whether you agree with their findings or not is besides the point. Whether creationists are right about the unreliability of radiocarbon dating or not is also besides the point. My point is that they arrived at their conclusions based on the scientific data, experiments and results. The fact that these things confirm Scripture is just icing on the cake for those who believe that God has given us His Word and that it is a reliable source for understanding and living life to its fullest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 8:52 AM Kelly has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 133 of 207 (502278)
03-10-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kelly
03-10-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Not ignoring anything Percy,
Remember that whether or not any of these studies (whatever the subject matter) are right or wrong has no bearing on the fact that they are scientific studies.

But the fact that these "studies" involve talking ignorant unscientific gibberish does have a bearing on whether they are scientific studies.

Talking about science using the terminology of science but getting it all wretchedly, pitifully wrong doesn't make you a scientist. It makes you a creationist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 10:34 AM Kelly has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 134 of 207 (502287)
03-10-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Kelly
03-10-2009 11:01 AM


Re: This is all arguable, debatable
and beyond my point of contention--which is that creation science is not a study of God, how God created or of religion, but a study on the merits of scientific methods, data and study, even if you disagree with their findings.

Their findings are based on how well the results of scientific methodologies line up with their religious convictions. If scientific findings contradict their religious convictions then the scientific methodology is chucked, or the methodology is changed so that it produces results that are more to their liking. This is exactly what the RATE group did with the Mt. St. Helens dacite samples. They tested samples that contained xenoliths (a no-no for K/Ar dating) and used equipment incapable of measuring young ages.

Science is not about just studying the evidence, or running experiments. Science is about producing evidence through experimentation that rigorously tests a hypothesis. Creation scientists do not rigorously test hypotheses.

Taking a different tack, what about Invisible Pink Unicorn science? This is a group of scientific studies which supports the hypothesis that the IPU created the universe. To support this science, I have run an experiment. I heated water until it began to boil. I meticulously measured the temperature at the boiling point which was 98 celcius. From this experiment I concluded that the IPU created the universe. Would you agree that this is science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Kelly, posted 03-10-2009 11:01 AM Kelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by olivortex, posted 03-10-2009 6:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 135 of 207 (502296)
03-10-2009 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Taq
03-10-2009 6:04 PM


Re: This is all arguable, debatable
Uh, have I the right to say... "Yes"? ;)

But I'd rather have a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Ok, Invisible Pink Unicorn is allright with me. It makes me think of the Ridley Scott movie... LEGEND!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-10-2009 8:38 PM olivortex has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019