Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 25 (48772)
08-05-2003 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by The General
08-05-2003 2:47 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
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:
  • 14C calibration with tree rings, varves, glacial ice.
  • The age of the marine carbon reservoir.
  • Age of your citations.
  • Misrepresentation of 14C calibration studies.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by The General, posted 08-05-2003 2:47 AM The General has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 25 (48775)
08-05-2003 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by The General
08-05-2003 2:47 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
General! I'm glad you're back! Post 7, please...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by The General, posted 08-05-2003 2:47 AM The General has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 25 (48784)
08-05-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by The General
08-05-2003 2:47 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
quote:
Thank you to all who have commented, with the exception of the inidividual who accused me of 'cuttin-and-pasting' and the one who suggested I had retreated.
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:
One very obvious reaction after reading the comments is that people did not like the 'embarassments' and 'oops' section.
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:
Please understand that I realize (as I stated in the article) that one can find reasons to excuse these errors. However dispite this knowledge, the ages on these objects are not changed.
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:
Also, perhaps conveniently, not one individual attempted to respond to Dr. Robert Lee qoutation which I quoted from the 1981 Anthropological Journal of Canada.
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 informed me that carbon daters take this into account (that the C-14/C-12 ratio is not even) however if they accept that steady state has not been reached that this world is under 30 000 years old.
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:
Any carbon dates in objects given an older date than that would then be false.
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:
Since many believe that the world is billions of years old, they certainly cannot appeal to Carbon dating.
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:
If steady state has been reached we must deal with the issues I raised in the article.
Again, this doesn't make sense. If a steady state has been reached, C-14 works like a charm.
quote:
If it has not been reached then there are very serious problems, big enough to invalidate the whole carbon dating system if it keeps coming up with objects supposedly millions of years old.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by The General, posted 08-05-2003 2:47 AM The General has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by The General, posted 09-10-2003 1:49 AM John has replied

  
The General
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 25 (54679)
09-10-2003 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
08-05-2003 10:56 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 08-05-2003 10:56 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2003 3:47 AM The General has not replied
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-10-2003 3:55 AM The General has not replied
 Message 22 by John, posted 09-10-2003 9:41 AM The General has not replied
 Message 23 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 1:51 PM The General has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 20 of 25 (54688)
09-10-2003 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by The General
09-10-2003 1:49 AM


Inadequate Response to Critics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by The General, posted 09-10-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 25 (54690)
09-10-2003 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by The General
09-10-2003 1:49 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
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. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by The General, posted 09-10-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 25 (54737)
09-10-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by The General
09-10-2003 1:49 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
quote:
The steady state has not been reached.
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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by The General, posted 09-10-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 25 (107477)
05-11-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by The General
09-10-2003 1:49 AM


Re: Responding to Critics
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 of
c-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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by The General, posted 09-10-2003 1:49 AM The General has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 1:55 PM rickrose has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 25 (107478)
05-11-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by rickrose
05-11-2004 1:51 PM


Good Advice
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by rickrose, posted 05-11-2004 1:51 PM rickrose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Admin, posted 05-11-2004 2:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 25 of 25 (107486)
05-11-2004 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 1:55 PM


Re: Good Advice
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 1:55 PM NosyNed has 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