Arguements Over a Critical Point

I thank the good lord you've made this decision

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

quote:

---

Reliability of Carbon Dating

​

Bristlecone Pine Trees
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c2
From the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.

​

Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."

​

These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

---

Aside of this, there is also the lessening by re-constructionism scenarios, and agenda based conclusions, specially so with any findings relating to ToE factors. While ToE adherents accept the million years scenarios to base their claims, they contradict their science by the applicable maths: an 'on-going process' renders the million year scenario inapplicable, irrelevent and a slight of hand casino science.

quote:

---

I thank the good lord you've made this decision

---

Last time I read Genesis, the Lord correctly uses contextual protocol. Yours is not a good example of responsa to my post.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I'm afraid I missed your point on this. Can you please explain?EDIT: Are you saying that attempts to refine and correct quirks in C14 dating are a weakness in the entirety of radiometric dating overall?Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

No, I'm certainly not negating the value of C14, only that it is not accurate for small and critical time margins. Also, when used for critical small and recent datings, by itself its not a sufficient conclusion: it has to match surrounding evidences, as it is subject to numerous forms of natural interfearences and impacts [earthquakes, tsnumamies, etc].IMO, datings pertaining to prototype humans, specially when denoting intelligence and speech for modern mankind and its history, a continuous period of transit imprints should be evidenced, and these should align with mental prowess and population back-ups; thus I reject the Australian Abs as 60K.

quote:

---

No, I'm certainly not negating the value of C14, only that it is not accurate for small and critical time margins.

---

Of course. This is true for just about any tool we use in science. It's why we make sure to use the right and appropriate dating methods available, where the margin of error would be acceptable for the given study. You probably wouldn't use C14 dating for dating bodies from the medieval era... using C14 to study migratory patterns of early Homo sapiens sapiens would be much more appropriate.Though I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "critical time margins."

"Though I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "critical time margins."Critical, as in a paradigm changer, as with dating speech emergence. Here, a small period impacts upon proven speech endowed modern humans. C14 of fossils and caves does not conclude these factors.

As you're new here, perhaps I should explain that no-one knows what IamJoseph means, not even other creationists.He's invented his own language, which shares words with English but not semantics.It's best if you just ignore him.Brad McFall is the same, except that Brad has a pleasant, happy-go-lucky personality, and is rather likeable, whereas IamJoseph is angry, self-righteous, and upset that no-one concurs with his meaningless gibberish.

To expand on Dr A's point, take a look at the following statement made by IamJoseph.

quote:

---

IMO, datings pertaining to prototype humans, specially when denoting intelligence and speech for modern mankind and its history, a continuous period of transit imprints should be evidenced, and these should align with mental prowess and population back-ups; thus I reject the Australian Abs as 60K.

---

Does this make sense to anybody, not to mention all the obvious grammar errors?Joseph thinks that he is impressing the rest of us with all of this jargon he's throwing out.And I agree with Dr A. It's best to just ignore him most of the time. I don't know why I even bother reading his messages.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!