|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies | ||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Actually, I'd be willing to bet that the curator, when confronted with some bozo demanding that a plastic toy be carbon dated, probably said something like: "Why the hell would we waste time and money on a C14 assay on a piece of plastic? Any idiot knows carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results if you try and use it on plastic. Must have been a creationist that sent this in."
|
||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No kidding. He saw the chance for some quick cash and a good laugh. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
How 'bout you try this on for size (following quotes are from Smithsonian Barbie | Snopes.com):
The gullibility of some people! Geesh! --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Aww, Percy, you're no fun...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
wwjd Inactive Member |
Carbon Dating: The Assumptions
Carbon Dating is one of many Radiometric Dating techniques. As such, it shares some of the controversial assumptions fundamental to Radiometric Dating, such as (i) a constant rate of decay, (ii) no loss or gain of parent or daughter elements during decay, and (iii) known amounts of daughter elements present at the beginning of decay. Carbon Dating is often confused with other radiometric techniques, which place the ages of inorganic material in the millions or billions of years. As shown above, Carbon Dating is only used to date organic matter and is unable to determine the age of anything exceeding 60,000 years old. Carbon Dating: The ControversyCarbon Dating is actually more controversial than other radiometric dating techniques, in that it makes an additional major assumption. In order for Carbon Dating to have any value, Carbon-14, produced in our outer atmosphere as Nitrogen-14 and changed into radioactive Carbon-14 by cosmic-ray bombardment, must be at equilibrium in our atmosphere. That is, the production rate must be equal to the decay rate. Based on the mathematics inherent in Libby's research, it takes approximately 30,000 years of Carbon-14 build up from a zero concentration level to reach this state of equilibrium. Recent studies indicate that Carbon-14 has not yet reached equilibrium in our atmosphere, thus indicating that the atmosphere is not yet 30,000 years old. Carbon Dating: The Use Of DendrochronologyCarbon Dating advocates have turned to Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) to help solve the "equilibrium" dilemma. They claim that Dendrochronology allows them to determine past concentration levels of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, by measuring the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios in tree rings. The problem is that no trees have been shown to exceed 4,500 years in age. The Methuselah Tree in Southern California has been called the oldest living tree, and it has been dated at approximately 4,500 years. Carbon Dating advocates use tree rings from dead trees thought to overlap the Methuselah Tree to mathematically determine ages exceeding 4,500 years. They determine whether a dead tree's age overlaps the Methuselah Tree's age by ring patterns, and then they assume that the dead trees are older through a comparison of ring patterns, carbon ratios, etc. There seems to be an illogical methodology here. To complicate matters, tree ring patterns are typically inconsistent. Even living trees can show dissimilar patterns caused by differing soil nutrients, direction of prevailing sunlight, fire history, distance to water sources, etc. http://www.carbon-dating.net/ My opinion based on what I've seen, read and heared, The Carbon Dating is incurrate on plastic or anything else for that matter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Now tell us w, do you really believe that geochronologists and archeologis,ts are unaware of these assumptions?
quote: Utter nonsense, w, as long as the cosmic ray flux varies, the system will NEVER reach equilibrium.
quote: More nonsense, w, of course there are no LIVING trees over 4500 years old, but there are plenty of dead ones.
[quote]My opinion based on what I've seen, read and heared, The Carbon Dating is incurrate on plastic or anything else for that matter.[/B][/QUOTE] Your opinion is based on misinformation and misunderstanding. You have been deceived by your professional creationists...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
wwjd Inactive Member |
quote: You're mis-informing me and blaming it on my understanding of logic? And the professional creationist's deceiving me? A statement such as that one insists that one does not have an open mind, which is a personal attack. Try to leave the personal attacks out of it and we might get somewhere. If you think I am mis-understanding something, PLEASE, clear it up! After all, thats why I'm here!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If you go to this page of the Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory:
radiocarbon WEB-info You'll see a lot of links at the top. After reading through these links you'll have a much better understanding not only of how C14 data works, but also of the sources of inaccuracy and how they are managed. You'll also see that it bears little resemblance to what you've been told. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
As Budikka seems to have made his concluding remarks on this topic, perhaps it would be best now closed (but I'm not yet going to do it). After message 24, this topic seems to have wandered off into matters best covered in other topics.
Admin (aka Percy) has been trying to explore for postings to be given special recognition as "posts of the month". It is desired that a balance between "creationist" and "evolutionist" messages be done. The only way I see this as being practical, is to have both a "creationist" POTM and an "evolutionist" POTM. Might some somewhat condensed versions of Fred's site, and Budikka's replies of this topic, be good candidates for being POTM's? Might, though, very well require a lot of further work on Fred's, Budikka's, and others parts. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-21-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Adminnemooseus is right once again! I've closed this topic and suggest resuming discussion at another currently active thread on the topic, fossils and carbon dating, or open another thread if you prefer.
------------------ --EvC Forum Administrator
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024