|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,783 Year: 1,105/6,935 Month: 386/719 Week: 28/146 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1128 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry. Points Refuted A Thousand Times. "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2621 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Points Refute A Thouasnd Times. Used to indicate that the points brought up have been refuted from the very get go, but still seem to pop up now and again when creationists claim they have evidence for creation. In short, if you se this term used, it means that that claim has been refuted so many times, it's a mystery as to why it's still being used.
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry. BTW, ICR has this Bible for $35. Not sure why one would be selling it for $500!!!
$ 35 sounds a much more reasonable price. Why it's sold for $ 500 there? Some peeople will buy into anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2458 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, and the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material and to prepare it in parallel with the unknown samples, using the same chemical reagents, the same batch of glassware, the same combustion and graphitization procedures, the same analysis run in the AMS system, etc. Then treat this "radiocarbon-dead" sample as a total process background to be subtracted. This way any surprises due to contaminated chemicals, dirty ion source, etc. are captured and subtracted out. Unfortunately, the YECs cannot do this because they are stuck in a different paradigm. They don't believe the earth is old enough to have truly "radiocarbon-dead" material. So they don't do proper background subtractions and they fool themselves even further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Yes, and the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material and to prepare it in parallel with the unknown samples, using the same chemical reagents, the same batch of glassware, the same combustion and graphitization procedures, the same analysis run in the AMS system, etc. Then treat this "radiocarbon-dead" sample as a total process background to be subtracted. This way any surprises due to contaminated chemicals, dirty ion source, etc. are captured and subtracted out. This is something our summer interns always miss. I always let them design their first experiments and then ask "What are your negative and positive controls?". The look on their faces is priceless. Also, it would seem to me that even with a bouncy background you could at least use known concentrations of 14C to create a linear regression and extrapolate the background and measure the std. error. Anything within the std. error compared to background could be considered zero. Perhaps the problem here is that radiocarbon age is not represented by the amount of carbon 14 but by the calculated age which does not relate the data to the actual background in the experiment. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6194 Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry. As I told you when I first used the acronym with you ( Message 25):
quote: Which is true. The creationist literature is very resistent to correction, the pattern we see being that they're far more interested in claims that sound convincing than in the truth. So new creationists pick up the "latest" books and see all those claims that were soundly refuted 30 years ago being presented as if they were the latest thing. So these new creationists think they have all this really great evidence that blows evolution out the window when in reality they have worse than nothing. It just boggles my mind that people who care so much for their religion and for their faith would insist on building their house upon quicksand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 5264 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2621 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IchiBan writes:
Wait, we have the actual names of the creationists here? Not only that, they did research too? Or perhaps, the studies we cite are anonymous studies, where scientists don't put their names under them and don't source them at all. The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc. It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate. Oh wait, that's a lie...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc. It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate. The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate. So shoot the messenger and ignore the message. How . . . creationist. It really is style above substance for the creationist crowd, isn't it. Oh, and has anyone mentioned that John Woodmorappe is a pen name? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
The real data, with names on the works, are in libraries and research institutions. It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate. Don't get the idea that what is said on internet chat rooms has anything to do with the actual conduct of science. (And if you look at my examples, upthread, you will note that I provided complete references.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
IchiBan writes: while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc. Wow, I didn't know we were graced with the real Chuka Ichiban, a genuine Japanese anime. Can I ask a question? Are your eyes really big and do you have blue hair? like this. . .
Oh wait, you're not him. So why do you post under that moniker and yet chastise Coyote for not using his real name while posting on an internet message board? I'm sure if you asked Coyote to see one of his technical papers it would have his real name on it. I'm also sure that it would be properly cited and sourced. The main difference between his papers and those of Morris et. al. is that Coyote's papers would actually have science in them, actual research. He would pose a thesis and then test that thesis with data collected from his archaelogical digs. Morris, on the other hand, made outrageous claims and then never bothered to test to see if they were actually viable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Morris, on the other hand, made outrageous claims and then never bothered to test to see if they were actually viable. Morris also borrowed heavily from George McCready Price (The New Geology, 1923), the original modern-day creationist. They were already PRATT's before Morris published his first book in the 1950's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi kbertsche, thanks for your input on this topic.
... the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material ... As an interesting side note to this, there is a search on for pure "radiocarbon-dead" oil: I ran into this while looking into young dates for coal: Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: So it is difficult to find oils etc that have not come into contact with other radioactive sources and cause a background level of 14C decay. The unscrupulous creationist only needs to look for radioactive contaminated samples and send them in to the various labs to get erroneous results. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3970 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate. Sounds like someone is a little shaken by this complete take-down of RATE - and this is nothing compared to Kirk's original thread over at theologyweb - masterful stuff. Hey, Ichiban, dare you go over to
TheologyWeb Campus
and see one of your heros (Baumgardner) have his ass handed to him on a plate? And by someone using their real name... ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2749 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
I went over there and that's a ton to read from a laymen's perspective but I fail to see where anyone, kbertsche, Baumbgardner, or anyone over there is getting "their ass handed to them."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I went over there and that's a ton to read from a laymen's perspective but I fail to see where anyone, kbertsche, Baumbgardner, or anyone over there is getting "their ass handed to them."
In science, you are either right or you lose a great deal of respect. There is no respect for errors. A scientist can admit uncertainty, and there is no discredit there (unless the answers are clearly known). But a scientists who publishes and defends what are clearly errors loses pretty much all credibility. Given that, here are two things that may help you as a layman understand this better. First, these measurements are generally being done out near the limits of the equipment. That's where things get a little less precise, or a lot less precise depending on the quality of the equipment and the care with which the samples are treated/pre-treated. Second, pay attention to the claims being made about contamination, both in the initial sample and the inherent contamination from the sample preparation process. Both of these factors combine to give C14 readings in "dead" samples. Scientists are aware of these problems, and attribute them, I think correctly, primarily to the causes I mentioned above. Creationists, on the other hand, often refuse to acknowledge the contamination problems and the inherent variations in the equipment. They make a case for a young earth, in direct contradiction to huge masses of data from virtually all fields of science, based on tiny amounts of C14 in these "dead" samples. That is a huge conclusion, a huge "leap of faith" if you will, to be drawn from a few samples that can readily be explained by other means. And there is no incentive for them to find "clean" samples. Given their presuppositions, they will want to find the contaminated samples because then they can make their case to those who aren't as familiar with the C14 process. Clean samples, for creationists, are a disaster. Hope this helps. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025