Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,120 Year: 5,377/9,624 Month: 402/323 Week: 42/204 Day: 18/24 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2240 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 34 of 136 (613208)
04-22-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kenny Johnson
04-22-2011 11:36 AM


Re: C14
Kenny Johnson writes:
I like C14 too! I like the fact that with advanced mass spectrometry we have detected C14 in 300 million year old Pennsylvanian coal. Of course, with the half life of C14, that would make the coal no older than 10s of thousands years old. Yeah, radioactive dating, responsible for the 300 million year date is obviously accurate, NOT!
First, it's not "advanced mass spectrometry," it's "ACCELERATOR mass spectrometry."
Second, if you are referring to the RATE project, look again at the actual table of measurements that RATE published (Table 2, p. 605 of the RATE report). Notice that the radiocarbon concentrations in coal vary greatly between samples, ranging from 0.1 to 0.46 pMC, nearly a factor of 5. Even among samples of the same geologic period (Pennsylvanian) there is a spread of 0.13 to 0.46, nearly a factor of 4.
If all coal were really the same age, shouldn't it all have the same concentration of radiocarbon? Even if it underwent a hypothetical "accelerated decay" shouldn't it all have the same concentration? Of course it should. Why the variation by a factor of 4 or 5?
This sort of large variation is quite consistent with sample contamination, but is inconsistent with the RATE claim that the radiocarbon is intrinsic to the samples.
For more information, please see my detailed critique, "RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?", available at a number of sites:
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?
RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
(And before you believe the erroneous claim that AIG has "effectively rebutted" my critique, notice the dates on my critique and their so-called rebuttal. What they responded to was an earlier, less complete version of my critique. Also look at my footnotes, and notice that I referenced and responded to AIG's so-called rebuttal in my critique.)
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kenny Johnson, posted 04-22-2011 11:36 AM Kenny Johnson has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2240 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 37 of 136 (613230)
04-23-2011 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
04-23-2011 12:22 AM


Re: C14
Coyote writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
I like C14 too! I like the fact that with advanced mass spectrometry we have detected C14 in 300 million year old Pennsylvanian coal. Of course, with the half life of C14, that would make the coal no older than 10s of thousands years old. Yeah, radioactive dating, responsible for the 300 million year date is obviously accurate, NOT!
Could you perhaps say more explicitly what it is you're trying to be wrong about. Creationists have made lots of mistakes about radiocarbon dating, and it is hard to tell from your vague ramblings which particular blunder you're trying to refer to.
I believe it is the blunder I referred to above in Message 33.
Check out the post and link and see if you agree.
I don't think so, because of his mention of "advanced mass spectrometry" [sic], by which he probably means "accelerator mass spectrometry" (AMS). The measurement that you referred to was from the 1960's, which is pre-AMS. It would have been a decay-counting measurement. I suspect he means the RATE study which I referred to in Message 34. Or maybe he is conflating the two?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 04-23-2011 12:22 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 04-23-2011 11:24 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024