Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 40 (23466)
11-21-2002 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
11-20-2002 11:25 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 11-20-2002 11:25 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 11-21-2002 8:41 AM Quetzal has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 40 (23479)
11-21-2002 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
11-21-2002 4:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
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."
No kidding. He saw the chance for some quick cash and a good laugh.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 11-21-2002 4:32 AM Quetzal has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 33 of 40 (23490)
11-21-2002 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by wwjd
11-20-2002 7:11 PM


wwjd writes:
Why not try this on for size.
"...Carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results..."
Harvey Rowe (Smithsonian Institute) Curator, Antiquities
This having been said when the head of a chewed up barbie doll was found buy some guy who likes to dig in his back yard and decided to send his findings to the Smithsonian Institute to have it carbon dated.
How 'bout you try this on for size (following quotes are from Smithsonian Barbie | Snopes.com):
  • This tongue-in-cheek "letter" has been entertaining netizens since its November 1995 debut in the USENET newsgroup rec.humor.funny. It caught on quickly; within the space of a month what was clearly a humor post was being forwarded in e-mail as factual.
  • Harvey Rowe of the Smithsonian doesn't exist.
  • The Smithsonian doesn't have an antiquities department.
  • There's also no hopeful backyard paleontologist busily excavating the land around his clothesline and implacably sending specimen after bogus specimen off to the Smithsonian. That too is fabrication.
The gullibility of some people! Geesh!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by wwjd, posted 11-20-2002 7:11 PM wwjd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 11-21-2002 9:49 AM Percy has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 40 (23493)
11-21-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
11-21-2002 9:29 AM


Aww, Percy, you're no fun...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 11-21-2002 9:29 AM Percy has not replied

wwjd
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 40 (23498)
11-21-2002 11:44 AM


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 Controversy
Carbon 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 Dendrochronology
Carbon 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 11-21-2002 12:52 PM wwjd has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 40 (23507)
11-21-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by wwjd
11-21-2002 11:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wwjd:
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.
Now tell us w, do you really believe that geochronologists and archeologis,ts are unaware of these assumptions?
quote:
Carbon Dating: The Controversy
Carbon 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.
Utter nonsense, w, as long as the cosmic ray flux varies, the system will NEVER reach equilibrium.
quote:
Carbon Dating: The Use Of Dendrochronology
Carbon 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.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by wwjd, posted 11-21-2002 11:44 AM wwjd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by wwjd, posted 11-21-2002 2:05 PM edge has not replied

wwjd
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 40 (23517)
11-21-2002 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by edge
11-21-2002 12:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:

Your opinion is based on misinformation and misunderstanding. You have been deceived by your professional creationists...

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 11-21-2002 12:52 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 11-21-2002 2:46 PM wwjd has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 40 (23521)
11-21-2002 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by wwjd
11-21-2002 2:05 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by wwjd, posted 11-21-2002 2:05 PM wwjd has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 39 of 40 (23523)
11-21-2002 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Budikka
11-10-2002 2:47 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Budikka, posted 11-10-2002 2:47 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 11-21-2002 3:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 40 (23525)
11-21-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Adminnemooseus
11-21-2002 3:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2002 3:16 PM Adminnemooseus 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