Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
69 online now:
ICANT, nwr (2 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,211 Year: 10,959/23,288 Month: 211/1,763 Week: 178/390 Day: 67/32 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 153 (488908)
11-19-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Contingent
11-19-2008 3:36 AM


Carbon 14 levels
Nothing says that the levels of carbon 14 are or were constant at any point in history, or that the levels of solar radiation that cause the isotope in the atmosphere were ever constant."

This is a standard creationist argument which shows a lack of understanding of the radiocarbon method rather than a flaw in the way radiocarbon dates are obtained.

It was understood early (de Vries, 1958) that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere fluctuated. Accordingly, a calibration curve has been developed and refined to account for those variations, which are not very large anyway.

That calibration curve is based on tree rings and other annual data. The method is simple -- count tree rings back to, say, 10,000 years and radiocarbon date that ring. That gives you a date on a sample of a known age. By comparing the date returned against the known date, you can see what correction may be needed.

If I remember correctly, this has been done in one year increments back into the 1600s, and ten year increments back to about 12,600 years ago using the standing dead bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of Southern California. This has resulted in a fine calibration curve.

I believe the curve has been extended past 20,000 using other annular materials from other areas.

But in spite of this, creationists keep spreading the misinformation that the C14 method is erroneous when in fact it is the creationist's information that is erroneous.

And I might add, this is so often the case. Wishful thinking, a distaste for science and scientific research, and an overriding belief in creationism somehow don't lead to the most accurate scientific pronouncements. Coupled with the need to evangelize, this misinformation has been spread all over the web. You seem to have posted this exact misinformation over on the James Randi Educational Foundation website.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Contingent, posted 11-19-2008 3:36 AM Contingent has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 11-19-2008 11:48 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 153 (488909)
11-19-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Larni
11-19-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Sources
Apparently this is a 'claim' from his room mate.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18360.msg206262

Here too:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129136


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 11-19-2008 9:37 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 11-19-2008 11:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 153 by samreddevilz, posted 06-19-2013 3:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 29 of 153 (573338)
08-10-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 5:31 PM


to fit their theory and unbelief... ???
in other words scientists ASSUME they have the correct date because all dating systems tell them what they want to hear and there is no objective, superior unfailing system to make corrections thus the scientists can place any date they want to an item to fit their theory and unbelief, then synchronize that date with similar dating systems because they are in control of the systems and no one can correct them.

basically the dating systems are manipulated to fit the bias of the scientist doing the dating. they are too subjective to be reliable.


Sorry to have to disagree with another archaeologist, but that isn't the way I learned it in graduate school (archaeology Ph.D.).

Scientists don't have "beliefs." They have data and explanations for that data. If new data comes to light, the explanations may have to change.

If one is relying on "beliefs" one can't change to accommodate new data. This is where religions run into problems with science.

And dating is one of the primary areas where some religions have problems. When dogma requires belief in a particular age (young earth, for example), adherents to that dogma are forced to ignore, deny, or misrepresent any evidence that science might come up with that contradicts that belief. This seems to be where you are coming from.

But we can propose a test: what is your position on a global flood about 4,350 years ago?

If you support a global flood and a young earth, there is no way your positions can be coming from science, as the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence contradicts these beliefs.

And if this is the situation, no amount of evidence from science will change your mind, as your belief is not based on evidence.

And if this is the case, you are the exact opposite of a real archaeologist.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 5:31 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 31 of 153 (573348)
08-10-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:13 PM


You're not an archaeologist...
...you are a religious apologist.

I was hoping to have another archaeologist here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:13 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 153 (573516)
08-11-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


Better ignore me too.

You are the exact opposite of a scientist, and naming yourself "archaeologist" is an insult to tens of thousands of hard-working archaeologists around the world.

Note tag line below.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 153 (573603)
08-12-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


Archaeologist, you have spouted such a stream of mixed-up religious dogma that I'm not going to bother with most of it.

Suffice it to say you are no archaeologist, nor any form of scientist. You are the exact opposite; from your postings you are anti-science and anti-knowledge. You certainly didn't come here to learn anything.

You should end each post with "Amen," because all you are doing is preaching. Perhaps you should try the other forums here, and leave the Science Forum to those who are interested in furthering science and knowledge instead of denying them.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 153 (573820)
08-12-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:29 PM


Citation please
i believe not too long ago the british museum had to recalibrate some c-14 dates because they came up younger than the scientists wanted.

Citation please.

I would like to learn what the original paper stated, not what some creationist wants us to believe they stated.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work as an archaeologist, and I have yet to see a young earth creationist present an honest assessment of radiocarbon dating. They typically gripe about the assumptions that radiocarbon experts make then bring in totally imaginary things like a vapor or water canopy and a global flood to make the dates fit their requirements. The fact that there is no evidence for such a canopy or a flood doesn't seem to bother them as long as the dates can be manipulated to fit their beliefs.

Any scientist who engaged in such behavior would be ostracized, and a few have been.

And as for recalibrating dates, all dates are calibrated to account for several factors (atmospheric variation, isotopic fractionation, reservoir effect, etc.). The calibrations are done to improve the accuracy of each date. Occasionally the calibration methods are refined so dates are often recalibrated using the most recent calibration curves or Delta-R estimates to increase their accuracy.

So please, a citation for what the British Museum folks did.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:29 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 85 of 153 (573959)
08-13-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 4:55 AM


would like to learn what the original paper stated, not what some creationist wants us to believe they stated

1. it was a newspaper article and i am still looking for it
2. if you think i lie then do not engage me.


Your creationist sources are lying to you.

And I don't want a newspaper article; I want the original scientific study from a peer reviewed journal.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work as an archaeologist, and I have yet to see a young earth creationist present an honest assessment of radiocarbon dating.

you must have a lot of funding as c-14 dating is expensive and usually saved for the best candidates and i think i will stop looking for that article given your attitude.


An AMS date currently costs $595, while standard radiometric dating is about half of that. I have used as many as 31 dates on a single archaeological project, and have done about 600 dates so far in my career.

Again, though, you demonstrate you are not a real archaeologist and that you don't know much about the field. My guess is that you dabble in biblical archaeology and not much else.

When we do real archaeology we have budgets to do the necessary research, unlike amateur archaeology which is often poorly funded.

but while i was searching i did find this:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html


I have read this article in the past, and many others like it. It is full of mistakes and misrepresentations. It certainly has fooled you into thinking it is accurate.

Example, right at the beginning the article states:

We all realize that parent radioactive material is transformed into stable daughter products, i.e.

> C-14 ---> C-13 and/or C-12

And of course almost everyone knows that C-14 decays into N14. The unnamed person writing this article doesn't know the first thing about radiocarbon dating!

More recently others have tried to duplicate Libby's measurements with more modern equipment and much greater accuracy. They concluded that the out-of-balance condition is real and even worse than Libby believed. Radiocarbon is forming 28% - 37% faster than it is decaying. [65]

i haven't read it all so i do not have any comments to make and i would like to get a link to libby's notes on the decay rate.

And when was Libby doing his testing? Right around the time they were popping off atomic weapons! Of course the production of C14 was higher! Everyone who deals with radiocarbon dating knows of the problems that caused. Fortunately, we are dating samples which are pre-bomb, and don't have to worry about that problem. But your source doesn't know all of this, and wants to make you the gullible creationist think there are problems with the radiocarbon method.

Just one more example: Your source makes a big deal of the following:

Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer' technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [50]

My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete.

I have read the original article (and I know one of the authors).

This might be of use to creationists if those eleven skeletons were truly ancient, but the old age estimates were done using amino acid racemization dating which has been shown to be highly inaccurate. And how were those skeletons correctly dated? By C14 dating! This article corrected an earlier and faulty dating method. Here is a link to a more detailed examination of the issue:

Link

This is why I want to read the original peer reviewed articles, and don't trust the biased nonsense that creationist websites contain. You shouldn't either. Creationists have no interest in accurate assessments of the various dating methods, nor the knowledge to competently discuss them. They are lying to you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 4:55 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 111 of 153 (574060)
08-13-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 6:33 PM


Science is how we found out that the Biblical Flood never happened, remember?

this is a fallacy and untrue. given that we cannot dig up the whole world to get uiform evidence, given that we would not know what noah's flood evidence would look like, given that we do not know what the pre-flood geography was like, given that the many natural disasters, volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods etc, would change the evidence insome way, given the many wars and their destructive nature would affect the evidence, given that construction and marching of armies, migrating people would alter the evidence in some way, given that approx. 3,500 years have transpired since the event---just what kind of evidence do you think science would find in the modern age?

Evidence of the time period ca. 4,350 years ago is easy to come up with. There are sediments and cultural deposits of that age all over the world. Very likely some could be found in your back yard or neighborhood.

But we don't need to check all over the world, as you erroneously suggest above. We only need a few places that have evidence of that time period but show no evidence of a flood to disprove the belief in a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. I have tested over a hundred archaeological sites personally that cross-cut that time period, but there was no evidence of a flood in any of them. My colleagues have tested tens of thousands of similar sites with the same results.

What I have found at that time period, and both before and after, was Native American cultures. We have continuity of cultural evidence, fauna and flora, sediments, and mtDNA. That latter is a telling argument: we have the same mtDNA types dating 5-10,000 years of age that are also found in living individuals in the same areas. There has been no destruction and replacement by mtDNA associated with the Middle East (Noah's female kin).

Now you may not agree with that evidence, or the dating, but that doesn't matter. You can think the moon is made of green cheese and rub blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays. But that doesn't make the evidence go away. It just marginalizes your position.

This was understood many years ago:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:33 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 116 of 153 (574092)
08-14-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 11:55 PM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
I suggest you read the following article:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This explains a lot of the details in radiometric dating, of which uranium dating is only one of many methods.

This will help you to understand the methods and to avoid silly mistakes.

I really do hope you will give this article some good study.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 11:55 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 127 of 153 (574261)
08-15-2010 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


Belief
As Heinlein noted,
Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Your posts are so full of belief that you seem incapable of learning anything.

That's just sad. And a real waste, both of your intellect and our time.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 3:40 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020