Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 116 (3028)
01-28-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
01-28-2002 6:30 PM


TC, you are apparently pulling these items out of the papers cited in message 6. Do you have online links to these? I would like to see those items in the context of the papers.
Also, please see this, if you havn't already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
Moose
Edit: Deleted previous edit
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-28-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 01-28-2002 6:30 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 01-28-2002 10:56 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 116 (3040)
01-28-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
01-28-2002 6:43 PM


"TC, you are apparently pulling these items out of the papers cited in message 6. Do you have online links to these? I would like to see those items in the context of the papers."
The article was mine, more like a commentary of some sort, as I had little of my own text which I did not include with this quote from AiG which I cannot seem to be able to connect to right now, copy and past a peice of this quote into the AiG search and you should find the place I copied it from. Ofcourse this does not demean the relevance.
quote:
Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised, Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... (Waterhouse).
In general, dates in the `correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. (Mauger)
... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)
... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).
In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods. (Brown and Miller)
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.
c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
"Also, please see this, if you havn't already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
--Ofcourse, Its probley one of only 2 papers that I get a link towards Radiometric dating in these forums.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-28-2002 6:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 116 (3053)
01-29-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
01-28-2002 4:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method."
--So you agree that all the dating methods are not consistant?
(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar.
quote:
"At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results."
--Is this about expenses or accuracy? If your argument revolves around consistant accurate dates claimed by the different radiometric dating methods, that means that if you date something with say the Potassium/Argon or Uranium232 (I'm not sure what the number was) and get ranges in the hundreds of millions or so, then that should easilly and is 'required' that Carbon14 should be near non-existant in your sample, is this not correct?
Unless there has been contamination.
quote:
"No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates."
--It is necessary to give a relatively even date, instead of all over the chart, meaning if you find a fossil, and then find a fossil lying next to it, and they are 30,000 year diffence, that means that you have to preserve one of them for those 30,000 years without such decay, and a landslide is not acceptable for all these cases, as strata layering is consistant throughout both samples.
Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something.
quote:
"If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it."
--What would you be making reference to, conclusion to what observation?
Never mind.
quote:
"Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods."
--I can see why, they despise those young dates.
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14.
quote:
"There are more appropriate methods"
--You mean more 'accurate' methods?
No. I mean more appropriate.
quote:
I thought they were all appropriate, as they would be if they all gave consistant dates wouldn't they.
For different ages and materials, yes.
quote:
"Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14."
--This is exactly why when you date anything that is supposedly older than 50-70k years dated by another method or the fossil record/geologic column,(depending on who your talking to) then you should have an infinite date, ie, undetectable carbon or unmeasurable quantities of radioisotops of the nuclei in your sample.
Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number.
quote:
"So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old."
--Yes there should be abundant samples of these quantities of radioisotopes of carbon 14, but as you saw only 3 of the 15,000 gave this 'date'.
As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date.
quote:
...
"How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?"
--For one, where is it going to migrate, espicially coal, as it is a solid material. So your argument is that, since these dates seem to be inaccurate, therefor they had to have been contaminated by partitioning of the rocks, interesting you bring this up as it is one of the assumptions involved in the various 'dating' methods.
For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal. Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?
quote:
"What do you mean by primitive?"
--Primitive as in early in the geologic column primitive.
Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today.
quote:
"I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution."
--Key words 'deep ocean deposits', they werent just picked up off the ocean floor, technically I am not refuting evolution, I am refuting the mechenism that is given to support Evolution geologically speaking.
Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon.
quote:
"Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young."
--Which means that the old rocks should get the old dates, and the young rocks should get the young dates.
Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud.
quote:
"I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession."
--You seem to be missing the point, if your going to date Carboniferous deposits and you get even the slightest ioda of measurable Carbon 14, you have a massive problem. If your statement is true, then it again should be taking a look at a little bit of bias found in anyone that would 'laugh you out of the profession' for getting a date as such.
Again, do you have a specific example? I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility. Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?
quote:
"Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years."
--Then why can we get even measurable samples if they are eons older than 50,000 years?
Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable.
quote:
"It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby."
--Again, if your getting measurable quantities of RadioCarbon 14 in your sample, then obviously using logic, it is younger than 50,000 years. Using your analogy this is like getting yourself a date of 100 days for your Kentucky Derby, obviously histerically 'out of the ball park'.
Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?
quote:
"The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party."
--If I lived near the Grand canyon I would like to do this myself so that I could obtain it as an absolute in my mind that this is true, along with every other aspect of assertion as I obtain speculation on any source that claims anything drastically relevent. But the fact is that these have already been found, it would not be the smartest thing to go do the test all over again if a conclusion has already been met.
But your integrity has been questioned! Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment? (Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.) The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous. And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know.
quote:
"That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?"
--Then why do they place the date of flowering plant Evolution at the Cretateous period when Coal formations are found in the Carboniferous? 230,000,000 years before they supposedly evolved.
Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering...
quote:
"But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian..."
--Being found in the same coal together, this would be expected from a Global Flood as thse formations were burried all at once, quicker than normal. Being burried in sedimental layers would be different however, as then factors of burrial would then be taken into consideration, from the time gymnosperms appear in sediments, to the time angiosperms appeard, could have consisted of days or less than weeks of time for burrial. By the way, I cannot find anything on a Hakatai Shale, where can I get information on this shale deposit.
The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!
quote:
"My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them."
--So you agree that Dating methods are not consistant then, so far it seems to be the only conclusion that uses the slightest of logic.
Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again.
quote:
"You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this."
--I would hold back the critisism untill conclusions are made, it would be unwize to do so.
This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it.
quote:
"Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is."
--You have it backwords, inaccurate conclusion on your part, as I have explained exactly why 'some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is'.
Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question.
[This message has been edited by edge, 01-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 01-28-2002 4:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:47 AM edge has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 116 (3056)
01-29-2002 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RetroCrono
01-27-2002 10:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]schrafinator, I cannot believe your bias and ignorance towards creation. Especially after all you taught me. I could quite easily come up with a massive list on things that evolutionist never answer, what should I do? Abandon the ToE because they won't answer my questions? Or abandon Creation because they won't answer my questions? Try perhaps do your own research instead of expecting to just be spoonfed the answers.[/QUOTE]
When I say that these are "questions Creationists never answer", I am actually including all of those sites and books written by Creationists, not just the people I have spoken to directly. I would sggest that I have done a great deal more study of both science and Creationism than you have, which was made abundantly clear to you, I think, when you came here as a YEC some months ago.
So, my dear, I have done a great deal of research to try to find the answers to these questions, and I have yet to. What makes this a problem for Creationists is that they make specific CLAIMS relating to these unanswered questions, OR they are inconsistencies which are ever left unaddressed.
quote:
1. Your argument is a straw men. Creationist don't claim to know what a kind is. That's why they have scientist working it out. They do however have a good idea on some kinds, such as the cow kind and the dog kind. It's the same as evolutionist won't tell me how life just amazingly spontaneously arrised. If I ask that question I get accused. No fair!
Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.
So, how do I tell the difference between the cow "kind" and the horse "kind"? What about between the dog "kind" and the hyena "kind"?
As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.
So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.
quote:
2. I have a good idea on how they conclude there dates, but not enough of an understanding to even have a crack at falsifying them. I've read of many problems given by creationist as to the current dating methods. So what am I to believe? Neither, both, or just pick out the bits that support pre-conceived ideas and be biased like everyone else?
Non-responsive hand-waving.
If ALL the dating methods are wrong, then HOW is it they are they wrong is an AMAZINGLY CONSISTENT WAY?
quote:
3. Because you don't understand the flood model. Saying never is not science. I'm uncertain about wood not being found there, but for the "flowering plants", that is easily answered. Go get some leaves/flowers and chuck them in some water. They float!
The problem is, we find leaves from non-flowering plants in the lower, older layers of the column, and in several hundred years of looking, we have thusfar not found any flowering plants in the deepest layers of the Geologic column along with them. Not ANY.
Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??
Also, how do you explain fossil forests, upright, stacked on top of one another in the layers, somtimes dozens of sucessive forests?
quote:
...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open... Genesis 7:11
Take note on that passage. I'm assuming it means volcanoes. If so, then that means all the volcanoes!
Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.
quote:
This was no ordinary flood. There would of been that many natural disasters going on (mud slides, earthquakes, etc.) that what the evidence reveals could be pretty much anything. It wasn't just the water sorting out our geologic column!
What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.
[QUOTE]Please, if you wish to argue the creation views, get some real arguments.[/b]
You seem to display a lot of attitude for such a poor debater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RetroCrono, posted 01-27-2002 10:47 PM RetroCrono has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 116 (3057)
01-29-2002 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
01-28-2002 11:42 AM


Like I have said before, Brad, I don't have a flipping clue what the heck you are trying to say.
Like, why on earth bring up nanotechnology, the Pope, or New Orleans?
Either get off the drugs or get back on your meds, man!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 01-28-2002 11:42 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 01-29-2002 11:41 AM nator has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 116 (3072)
01-29-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-26-2002 2:08 AM


Schraf,
If I may add another, I've posted this three times to three different people & never got an answer.
Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:
1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.
2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.
There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-26-2002 2:08 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 4:57 PM mark24 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 116 (3073)
01-29-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
01-29-2002 1:55 AM


You and I and every one else that got information from an IVY LEAGUE source were informed that the magnitude need only be added with/to by diaelectrics and permiability (this was also the same osmosis experiment in high school REPEATED in college). I respect your interest in wishing to not have my comments but the Pope aside I believe this has to do with rights extant from the ammendments specifically as to the difference in uniform association and not inhibited powers of the people. Feel free to put that sentence in the hotest linguistc analyser you got. The more you and others try to use the difference of kinematics and statics against me the more the Federal GOv gets dynamics (in this internet thing) to make the case (that word is really not in English in my understanding). We have all suffered a time in scinece when chemistry was thought to heal but insofar as I need and never did any "meds" I got it back by reading the Bible. The last post was attempt to give you what Cornell never got from me as part of an approved independent study to get and give a "take-home" lesson from the work of Croizat. I thought I did a good job. Many reject Croizat for the method he took to inform others. Sooner than later I will be speaking only interms of symbols and it will get even more difficult to understand me. Meanwhile I will be beginning some critiques of Carl Zimmer's Natrual History Articles so perhaps just jump the skip wire and wait for these for even profesional evolutionists will find the time and interest to be in the reading of those. I wish this rumor about me had never got started but at least I know that Carl did not start it. The work is simply to show where Galelio's quotient was mistaken for some difference in current science. You could do this too for I do not assume you are not a professional evolutionist or the equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 1:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 01-30-2002 12:11 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 116 (3099)
01-30-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Brad McFall
01-29-2002 11:41 AM


Marry, this well carried shall on her behalf Change slander to remorse; that is some good: But not for that dream I on this strange course, But on this travail look for greater birth. She dying, as it must so be maintain'd, Upon the instant that she was accused, Shall be lamented, pitied and excused Of every hearer: for it so falls out That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, Why, then we rack the value, then we find The virtue that possession would not show us Whiles it was ours. So will it fare with Claudio: When he shall hear she died upon his words, The idea of her life shall sweetly creep Into his study of imagination, And every lovely organ of her life Shall come apparell'd in more precious habit, More moving-delicate and full of life, Into the eye and prospect of his soul, Than when she lived indeed; then shall he mourn, If ever love had interest in his liver, And wish he had not so accused her, No, though he thought his accusation true. Let this be so, and doubt not but success Will fashion the event in better shape Than I can lay it down in likelihood. But if all aim but this be levell'd false, The supposition of the lady's death Will quench the wonder of her infamy: And if it sort not well, you may conceal her, As best befits her wounded reputation, In some reclusive and religious life, Out of all eyes, tongues, minds and injuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 01-29-2002 11:41 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 01-30-2002 10:52 AM nator has not replied
 Message 25 by joz, posted 01-30-2002 11:20 AM nator has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 116 (3105)
01-30-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
01-30-2002 12:11 AM


Thank you very much for the reply. You have voted one way or the other and I applaud that. SO i would like to put out as I have on others boards when this point was reached my offer for my less slanted position videos in which I attempt to allow the caller to choose sides. That is all anyone can ask. So I have 21/2 hours plus another hour walk through of my gradfathers museum of natural history in Fredonia NY that I will send free is you e-mail me a snail mail address at bsmcfall@hotmail.com and I am in the phone book. This is an offer for any one interested in creation and evolution 11/2 hours were live call ins and I did get calls that I had to respond to on air and I read a letter I had recieved from HM MOrris. If you would like this material for VCRS anywhere drop me a line. I am even less venomous than Croizat's scorpian. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 01-30-2002 12:11 AM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 116 (3107)
01-30-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
01-30-2002 12:11 AM


That was scary I thought you had contracted Brads condition for a minute. then I realised it sounded suspiciously like Shakespeare, is it Measure for measure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 01-30-2002 12:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-30-2002 8:46 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 116 (3110)
01-30-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by edge
01-29-2002 12:14 AM


"(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar."
--My point is, that if your going to date something that is 100 million years old, and you happen to find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes still 'decaying' in your sample, then the calender is drastically and utterly flawed.
"Unless there has been contamination."
--I might understand contamination giving you less quantities of carbon, but not more, how will you contaminate with new radioactive C14?
"Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something."
--I already gave you one, 15,000 different samples.
"Never mind."
--Okedoky.
"Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14."
--What are you talking about? The Half life of radioactive elements,eg. C14, is the method of decay rate. They measured it in a laboratory for about 3 days and the Half life of C14 is about 5730 years, so dinosaur bones must contain an infinite age, unmeasurable quantities of radioisotopes, meaning there is a problem if you find this.
"No. I mean more appropriate."
--If you can sufficiently explain to me why there there are more appropriate dating methods that can't be falsified, I will drop my argument.
"For different ages and materials, yes."
--So the stuff we find that is millions of years old can't be any older than 50,000 years?
"Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number."
--Then why do we not find this?
"As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date. "
--So even though we find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes in your sample, this method of dating, is logially inaccurate, because the dates contredict greatly.
"For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal."
--Please excuse me, but then you must also explain coals likewize outrageous dates.
"Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?"
--I should hope anyone does, It would be hard to find coal bed deposits in igneous rock, being of magmatic origin.
"Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today. "
--Why should I if it makes no relevance to the discussion, I know that whether they lived millions or billions of years ago that there are organisms still living in the same state as they were in that time, whether deposited in the flood or the billions of years. Your problem is that we can get dates from radiocarbon in these samples.
"Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon."
--Obviously, the problem is we can date these by Carbon14 analysis, as there should be none or unmeasurable quantities still existing there.
"Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud."
--What are you talking about? The problem is that the Old rocks seem to be getting the young dates by C14 'dating'. I have yet to hear an explination.
------Finish post later today, Don't give a response yet plz--------
------You werent suppost to reply yet! Oh Well ----Added By edit----
"Again, do you have a specific example?"
--I gave you one, 15,000 dates that are suppost to be in the millions dated by C14.
"I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility."
--For one, there is more than one coal deposit, so you must do this to all of them, second, how are you going to contaminate a deposit with new C14, I can see how you would get rid of it possibly, but adding C14? Mind you, this is also a radical assumption involved in every Radiometric dating technique, as you yourself admitted to just now.
"Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?"
--If your going to rely on the thought of contamination for all of these samples, then it is logical to drop C14 dating, because it seems to happen, in deep sediments on the ocean floor, coal, natural gas, etc. How is it irrelevant that C14 is still present in 100+ million year old sediments? This is fundemental, and is evidence that either all the Dating methods are inaccurate, atleast C14 is totally and utterly wrong, and/or you must admit that the various radioisotope dating methods are consistant with one another.
"Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable."
--Then rebuke the 15,000 dates, as you would need to do, they are extreamly unconsistant with the other dates proposed by even its own dating method.
"Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?"
--How easy?
"But your integrity has been questioned!"
--How so? I am simply admitting that science changes theories, If you can't accept this, you have no place in the discussion of theoretical applications in scientific inquireys, as is obvious.
"Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment?"
--No more than to go out and reproduce any other experiment ever done in the history of the scientific community.
"(Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.)"
--You are eons from the point, and direct false implications of what I said towards creationists, as opposed to scientists. Whats to oppose, there is no difference from a creation scientist and a scientist, there is a difference from an evolutionist and a creationist.
"The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous."
--Who said it was irreducable? Evolutionist just grab their bellys, give a good chuckle and ignore it, as far as I have seen.
"And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know."
--Just to let you know, there are multiple reproductions, it is just not going on as frequently as they would be looking elsewhere for other things to debunk or point towards their theory.
"Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering..."
--...Flowering plants are angiosperms, you don't have to be a biological professor to know that, please forgive me if the use of 'flowering plant' was not up to your standard, I will use angiosperm as opposed to your gymnosperms, and yes there arent just gymnosperms in there.
"The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!"
--Excuse me? 'It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it' You accept that there are pollen grains in there but do not think that it makes relevance?
"Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again."
--I have, with the present information, I can't come to any other conclusion!
"This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it."
--You attempted to make your assertion of my geologic resources were various internet sites, thus making me seem like I don't know what i am talking about, which is untrue, Earlier this year I had no more geologic knowledge than the average high schooler, though for a month or so, I have stuck my face in many books on geology and marine geology and various smaller books.
--Though the odd thing is, that even if those were my only resources, so far, I would be doing great in this topic, as I have not needed to stick my face in any information besides a geologic time line to know the dating of the carboniferous stratum!
"Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question."
--Im not sure if you have done lab work in radiometric dating techniques, but I havent, I freely admit, but why would I need to, as I have already presented valid information for you to comment on, and I have not yet received one that is substantially relevant to the discussion or of missunderstanding of the point.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 01-29-2002 12:14 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by edge, posted 01-30-2002 1:52 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 01-30-2002 2:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 116 (3114)
01-30-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar."
--My point is, that if your going to date something that is 100 million years old, and you happen to find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes still 'decaying' in your sample, then the calender is drastically and utterly flawed.

I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar.
quote:
"Unless there has been contamination."
--I might understand contamination giving you less quantities of carbon, but not more, how will you contaminate with new radioactive C14?
So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important.
quote:
"Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something."
--I already gave you one, 15,000 different samples.
I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date.
quote:
"Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14."
--What are you talking about? The Half life of radioactive elements,eg. C14, is the method of decay rate. They measured it in a laboratory for about 3 days and the Half life of C14 is about 5730 years, so dinosaur bones must contain an infinite age, unmeasurable quantities of radioisotopes, meaning there is a problem if you find this.
Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones. If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates. I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported.
quote:
"No. I mean more appropriate."
--If you can sufficiently explain to me why there there are more appropriate dating methods that can't be falsified, I will drop my argument.
I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable. Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one.
quote:
"For different ages and materials, yes."
--So the stuff we find that is millions of years old can't be any older than 50,000 years?
If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates. It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?
quote:
"Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number."
--Then why do we not find this?
Make that an unmeasureably LOW number. First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method.
quote:
"As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date. "
--So even though we find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes in your sample, this method of dating, is logially inaccurate, because the dates contredict greatly.
But we don't, unless there has been contamination.
quote:
"For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal."
--Please excuse me, but then you must also explain coals likewize outrageous dates.
Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?
quote:
"Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today. "
--Why should I if it makes no relevance to the discussion, I know that whether they lived millions or billions of years ago that there are organisms still living in the same state as they were in that time, whether deposited in the flood or the billions of years. Your problem is that we can get dates from radiocarbon in these samples.
Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples.
quote:
"Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon."
--Obviously, the problem is we can date these by Carbon14 analysis, as there should be none or unmeasurable quantities still existing there.
I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists.
quote:
"Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud."
--What are you talking about? The problem is that the Old rocks seem to be getting the young dates by C14 'dating'. I have yet to hear an explination.
Most likely it is contamination.
quote:
------Finish post later today, Don't give a response yet plz--------
Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:47 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 4:45 PM edge has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 116 (3115)
01-30-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
01-30-2002 11:47 AM


TC,
I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT.
Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in total
Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating.
Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 11:47 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2002 4:50 PM mark24 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 116 (3128)
01-30-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by edge
01-30-2002 1:52 PM


"I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar."
--Your still missing or ignoring the point. You still have measurable C14 and the measurable quantity of radioisotopes, thus giving your date, contredicts K-Ar.
"So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important."
--This is not how you get C14 in your organism, C14 can only be present when it is contracted from the organism eating plant life, or eating something that ate plant life, when its dead, neither is it eating, or is it breathing.
"I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date."
--I have a problem with all 15,000 of those dates, why would they give such dates to multi million year old stratum and its consealents.
"Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones."
--Then why are we finding any C14 existing in them at all?
"If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates."
--Which is my point, your not getting your infinite dates.
"I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported."
--Not just dinosaur bones, but I just gave you 15,000 and their results, not their direct results but their porportional summary.
"I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable."
--Exactly your problem, it is measurable.
"Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one."
--I am aware of many, C14 just being the most knowledgable, I believe 7 or so, they don't seem to be consistant with C14 do they?
"If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates."
--So they arent consistant.
"It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?"
--You can't measure lava flows with K-Ar with my knowledge on the subject, I know you know why. I know enough about radiometric dating to make this argument feasable.
"Make that an unmeasureably LOW number."
--Unmeasurably low quantity of radioisotopes, yes.
"First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method."
--So then why do you continually say that the dating methods are consistant when they do not give consistant dates.
"But we don't, unless there has been contamination."
--Relying on the arument of contamination is greatly flawed, and no, not all 15,000 of those dates are flawed by contamination.
"Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?"
--I think I know what your trying to say, but I think something I am not understanding from your grammer usage. "coal gas"?
"Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples."
--I just gave you an sample, or should I say example, 15,000 of them, with only 3 infinite dates, ie, unmeasurable).
"I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists."
--I just gave you 15,000 of them.
"Most likely it is contamination."
--Really, if you don't assume it was contamination, then your whole theory as a whole, or your various 'dating' methods are stuck in a rut.
"Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?"
--Yes I am well aware that there are many, as I have addressed through the forums numerous times before, I am showing you why C14 is either inconsistant with all the other dating methods, or they all are contredicting.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by edge, posted 01-30-2002 1:52 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 01-31-2002 10:42 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 116 (3130)
01-30-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
01-30-2002 2:55 PM


"I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT."
--Then we must maintain an explination why we find that these quickly decaying radioisotopes are still in measurable quantities when they should have 'decayed' millions of years ago.
"Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in total"
--I am well aware.
"Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating."
--Then why does it still exist in rocks many times older than 50,000 years, and in measurable quantities?
"Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older."
--What is the mechenism for C14 contamination to a non-living organism?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 01-30-2002 2:55 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 01-30-2002 9:44 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 76 by mark24, posted 02-01-2002 4:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024