|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined:
|
I would have complimented you for the relative clarity of this post, Calypsis, except you didn't actually write the parts that are relatively clear. (The pictures are, as usual, inadequately documented, grossly misinterpreted, and basically irrelevant -- you would have done better to use that space in trying to paraphrase your own understanding of Baumgardner's text.)
Of course, clarity and correctness are two completely different things. Certainly there is an essential relation between these things: lack of clarity really gets in the way of judging correctness, but presence of clarity is no guarantee of correctness. Anyway, in order to get a valid sense of Baumgardner's expertise on radiocarbon dating, you do need to consult sources other than Baumgardner, RATE, and creationist web sites and literature. Substantive information on RATE and Baumgardner can be found in previous posts on this thread: Message 151, Message 158 and Message 15. (I got that easily by searching for the name on each of the 11 previous pages in this thread.) A little more time with Google would lead you to more detailed discussions elsewhere. Of the ones I browsed in the last hour or so, the one I found most informative is here: RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? -- you can also find EvC threads and other sources that go on at length about other stuff mentioned in your lengthy quote: helium in zircon, polonium halos, etc. But apart from trying to do a better job of understanding the scientific method and the available evidence, you could also try just a little more in the area of thinking things through. For example, given this assertion in your lengthy quote:
quote: Apart from the "few samples" and "rough estimates" (in contrast to the large quantities of samples, and the much more careful estimates with measurable and much smaller margins of error, all of which contradict RATE's conclusions), the problem here is with the inescapable notion of "geological layers" being acknowledged in the same argument that appeals to a "cataclysm", which throughout YEC literature is defined very poorly or not at all with regard to the actual processes involved. How is it that cataclysm results in an arrangement of materials into well-ordered layers? Why do we not find a general, world-wide geological "hash"? How can it be that fossils managed to sort themselves out so distinctly among these layers, within the span of a one-year cataclysm? Why are some life forms, such as dinosaurs, found only as fossils, and never as actual bones? We do have bones (not fossils) from creatures (including humans) that lived 5 or 6 thousand years ago ("antediluvian"), but no dinosaur bones -- only fossils. I could go on... There are just so many simple, plain, obvious, "no-brainer" observations about the world that just cannot be reconciled with the YEC world view. It's a sadly endless source of astonishment that YEC's are so adamant about rejecting reality for the sake of asserting "historical truth" for this one written record of some stories that really amount to nothing more than "tales told around the campfire" a few thousand years ago. If you personally want to believe in magical explanations for everything around you, based on a serious misinterpretation of ancient scripture, that's your choice. If you insist on asserting such beliefs as facts to the public at large, it won't work. The errors and untruths in such assertions are just too blatant. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Otto, the topic here is NOT the flood and sorting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5242 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Anyway, in order to get a valid sense of Baumgardner's expertise on radiocarbon dating, you do need to consult sources other than Baumgardner, RATE, and creationist web sites and literature. That is total hogwash. You just lost your credibility with me, mister. I've been in the ball game a long time and I pretty much know who does and does not have credibility. What Baumgardner said was right on target. The evidence supports it. Say, before I leave this section of EvC for other areas, let me suggest that since you and your skeptic comrades like to play with reality, then the next time you find yourself extremely uncomfortable on real hot day, then just take your thermometer and paint new degrees on it. Change the calibration from 99 F to 68 F. That way you can feel nice and cool on even a very warm day. Neat!
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/utp-mcfall-4-both.jpg[/thumb=400]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined:
|
Your pictures have nothing to do with the topic.
You comments do nothing to advance your views. Focus and actually discuss the available evidence. You should, if you think you have an argument to make, head over to theAge Correlations and an Old Earth thread Message 1 C14 is included there and you can explain the evidence given. You have not shown how What Baumgardner said was right on target. The evidence supports it. By now you should know that simply saying something over and over doesn't mean a thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Since you are fond of Baumgardner and the RATE project here is a review of that work:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac: Assessing the RATE Project Key points from the article:
quote: quote: quote: This is an example of Baumgardner's research. What the RATE project did is confirm what scientists have been saying all along, but Baumgardner et al. wouldn't even accept that when it was shown by their own evidence! And in addition to showing that radiocarbon dating is accurate they also showed the global flood couldn't have happened as written. Of course they wouldn't believe that either, even though that is a logical conclusion from the RATE project's research. And you want to use Baumgardner as a credible source? What a joke! If you want to cast some doubt on radiocarbon dating you will have to try again. And stick to one point--the Gish gallop might play well before a creationist audience but here it just makes you look desperate. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5242 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Your pictures have nothing to do with the topic. You comments do nothing to advance your views. Focus and actually discuss the available evidence I've been looking for you, mister. You sorry rascal. Last night you said,
This is also a warning to those who might want to discuss this with you. They are probably wasting their time. So you took a subject (Moons, eclipses, and timing) concerning the absolute perfect timing of the most important event in the history of mankind and treated it like trash, never mind the solid evidence that I offered for it. I can even give more. Then you tucked it away in a category that is little read instead of placing it with the related subject I posted on moons because you just arbitrarily decided that it wasn't important enough. So ban me. It will be a blessing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined:
|
Another contentless, off topic post.
You would do better to address Message 185
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphereorganic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age. Even assuming a flood and a sequestering of biomas by the same, which I do not, none of this would affect the ratio C14/C12, so ages based on this ratio would be unaffected. Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another. I'm pretty sure this is not so. Which is why, for example, oxygen isotope ratios vary over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
You are correct, Mr. Jack - heavier isotopes do react more slowly in most situations, purely because they're "fatter" and have more inertia. Like me now and me at twenty. The Manhattan Project's biggest challenge was building those huge diffusion cells to seperate uranium-235 for bombs from the main isotope, U-238. The effects are pretty small in nature with, say, carbon 12 and 13, but they're measurable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The effects are pretty small in nature with, say, carbon 12 and 13, but they're measurable.
Correct. This is called fractionation. There is a good essay on this as applied to radiocarbon dating at this site: Isotopic Fractionation One tidbit: Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio. If isotopic fractionation occurs in natural processes, a correction can be made by measuring the ratio of the isotope 13C to the isotope 12C in the sample being dated. The ratio is measured using an ordinary mass spectrometer. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Once again: No chemical or mechanical process on earth can affect one isotope differently from another.
Heh... In that case, we're wasting our time worrying about an Iranian nuke... I'll give Obama a call tonight and let him know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined:
|
quote:Crap!! Do you mean I've just wasted the last 20 years of my life designing and operating mass spectrometers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEBRA  Suspended Member (Idle past 5228 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
Well you can date in-situ rocks relative to others by a few basic principles such as fossil evidence and sequence stratigraphy (if one rock is 'cut' by another then the it is older).
If you have an entire sequence of rocks right up to the present time the you could use deposition rates to calculate age but I wouldn't rely on it. Edited by Admin, : Remove sig.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sailorstide Junior Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
I was inactive for some time since I The Missing Link Topicteer was involved in the usual day to day routine of life and now I'm back for further discussion on the original topic of Carbon Dating and as to it's authenticity. I am now listed as the member name of sailorstide and have referance here for all who did participate in the disscussions of the Missing Link.
It's quite a ? as to the world of science which pits itself as to the world of religious beliefs. Surely even a novice of intellectual thought can base an opinion and be heard. Some say that the so-called missing link has been discovered which creates a bond from the past to the present for all the human family and that this is it no ?'s asked and some say that the missink link has not been discovered yet and that it never will. Radioactive carbon dating is not and never will be an exact science due to several facts and those facts are these: The sun that gives all life on this planet has never through the history of it ever been a limited and or unlimited solar flare projector. The sun has allways emitted random solar flare. Solar flare science is maybe at best 50 yrs oldand no knowlege of solar flare activity was recorded and or in evidence past this time. Through the 100's of millions of this worlds solar" flarily", if you will, there has been differances of activity so for any scientist to make a general definate claim on a constant solar flare normality is a bad tree barker to say the least.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024