|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi, General!
Your introductory post contained far too many points for a focused discussion, but this approach often works itself out as respondents usually choose just a few points to respond to. Just as an example, you could have dedicated an entire thread simply to discussion of the 14C steady state issue. The substantive responses to your initial post addressed these issues:
Your reply addressed none of these points, and the larger portion simply reiterated one of your points that no one chose to address, the 14C steady state issue. A discussion will have no back and forth if one side of the discussion ignores the points of the other. Lastly, and in case you didn't notice, I edited your initial post to make it readable. While formatting is of minimal importance in short posts, in longer multi-section posts with bullets, quotes and citations formatting is very important. Did you enter your post using Word? If so and you just used a cut-n-paste, that would explain the loss of spacing between paragraphs and all other formatting. Word can generate HTML, and you can use HTML in your posts. [Fixed "14C" appearance. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 08-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
General! I'm glad you're back! Post 7, please...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: If you stay around long you'll notice a pattern of posting and running which creationists frequently employ. Usually, the perp will start a topic with an enormously long post-- often cut-n-pasted from another site-- then vanish after only a few cursory responses to critics. Frequently, the perp will start several topics in similar manner. These lead to little discussion and it is quite irritating to dig into a thread only to have the initiator take his ball and go home. I am certainly glad you are back, but so far you have only worked your way to the 'cursory responses' stage. Perhaps you could work up some substantial reply?
quote: You flatter yourself. It isn't a matter of liking or not liking. It is a matter of knowing good science from garbage. Your 'embarrasments' are in fact embarassing, but not to us, to you.
quote: This doesn't make sense. Your 'errors' aren't errors. We know what went wrong-- people with a Biblical agenda. Why would we change the dates?
quote: Anyone have access to this article? I can't find it online. All I can find are hundreds of creationists sites quoting the same couple of sentences.
quote: One of my readers-- me-- informed me that the C-14/12 levels aren't dead stable, but pretty close. Ice cores, varves, tree rings, etc. all demonstrate this, as has already been pointed out to you. As for the second half of that statement, "If we assume the world has the characteristics of a young earth, then we conclude that it is a young earth?" You can't be serious.
quote: If all of the premises were wrong, then the conclusion would be wrong as well? Sort-of, technically no but the conclusion would not follow from the premises. Luckily, we have no reason to believe the premises are wrong.
quote: This doesn't make sense. Those believing the world to be billions of years old certainly can appeal to C-14 dating, though not to date objects older than about 40k years old. One cannot use C-14 to prove the world is billions of years old, nor can one use the abstract model of C-14 dating as a stand-alone method of proving the world to be even 30k years old. As you say, environmental factors can affect the dating. But we don't use the abstract model. We check the assumptions against other data and get real world figures.
quote: Again, this doesn't make sense. If a steady state has been reached, C-14 works like a charm.
quote: If a C-14 dating system comes up with dates in the millions, there is something wrong. C-14 is not accurate past 40k or so. Are you truly this ignorant of the dating system you criticise? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The General Inactive Member |
The steady state has not been reached. Scientists place the imbalance at about 35%. If it takes 30000 years to reach the steady state, but we havent reached it then the world is less than 30000 years old. Any dates coming up as older than that from the carbon dating method are wrong. My problem with the method is when people use it, get a really old age, and from that assume the world is millions or billions of years old. The carbon dating method does not support this.
General
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
YOur argument has already been answered (see my posts 4 and 15).
As I point out there are good reasons NOT to expect equilibrium (which relies on a constant production rate - which would not be the case even if humans weren't messing about with the carbon levels by burning fossil fuels and exploding nuclear devices). Moreover the calibrations done to date refute the claim that the Earth is less than 30,000 years old. So your argument relies on false assumptions and has been empiricially disproven. Morevover since the relevant facts have been already raised in this thread you are just repeating an assertion that has already been dealt with without answering the criticisms raised. THat is not a worthwhile response and is not discussing in good faith as is expected in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
General, are you reading the responses? From this post of yours it doesn't look like it.
You have made a statment about the "steady state" not being reached. You support this with an unreferenced "scientists place the imbalance at 35%"Would you care to support this? And explain what the implications are more carefully? No one that I have every come across ever does this ---"people use it, get a really old age, and from that assume the world is millions or billions of years old." Where do you get the idea that someone does? Please explain the connections. Has has been stated above, but you apparently missed. The carbon dating does not, as you say, support a billions of year old earth. NO ONE claimed it did! Why do you keep bringing that up? What carbon dating does do when complete with it's cross checking against other methods is give us a minimum age of some 10,000's of years. It is a useful archeological tool, it is not really very useful for the time scales of concern to those interested in evolution. It isn't clear why it is even being discussed here. (unless, just perhaps, you can't tolerate an earth of greater than 10,000 years even. Then you are going to have to bounce around trying to make up reasons why this method (of many) gives ages greater than that. There is so very much to explain that is going to be so very, very hard. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Essentially it has, at least as it concerns the creationist steady state argument. Production of C14 varies, which means that a true steady state will never occur, but the discrepancy is only about 10-15% and tree rings give us a good correction table.
quote: No, it doesn't. C14 has a limit of about 40,000 years, but you have been told this already by several people. Please read the responses. You are making it very hard to take you seriously. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rickrose Inactive Member |
General, your enthusiasm is commendable. This is a tough web sight as I am discovering, and also my first and only experience in a forum. For the most part it is well managed. There are some helpful people. But you, as myself, must do much more research. Others on the site condemn quickly. At times it appears that thier research is also lacking.
I believe in creation. But in my search to discover accuracy ofc-14, I find the creation sites emotional and lacking content -- for the most part. Also another thread discussed (although it wasn't dedicated to) the earth's age from the viewpoint of various creation believers. We don't all reach the same conclusions. Also the critisism that you have recieved that c-14 is not designed to date the earth is correct. C-14, as you know is for things once alive. The real issue that can be challegning to any creation believer is c-14 in relation to the age of human fossils. Good luck in your quest. And remember that we don't have God in a box. Many things we don't know. Don't be suprised if you're viewpoint is at least slightly modified over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Good advice there, rickrose, but the general has been gone for months. He was what is commenly called a "drive-by poster". Unlike yourself, he didn't exhibit any willingness to learn and didn't like having to defend his statments. When the heat was turned up he ran off.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2004 12:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The General was discovered to be a plagiarist. I think he was typing in excerpts from books off his own shelf. Unfortunately, he finally posted a lengthy excerpt from a book that someone else had already posted on the Internet and got caught. It wasn't any mystery what he was doing, as his follow up posts differed greatly in style and quality from his initial posts. I offered him the opportunity to continue posting his columns, but only if I first reviewed them. He declined and hasn't been heard from since.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024