|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing carbon 14 in fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The website you are linking to has a lot of errors. Here I analyze only one as an example. That site links to this abstract as "evidence" for the YEC belief:
MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL Presented: Fifth International Conference on CreationismAugust 4-8, 2003 Copyright 2003 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved JOHN BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABRATORY*D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH* ANDREW A. SNELLING, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH* STEVEN A. AUSTIN, PH.D.INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH* ABSTRACT Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago. In support of their young earth religious belief, your website links to this abstract. And it's finding is that "all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon)." From that it concludes "all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago." How about another conclusion? How about the possibility that there is an inherent lower level of C14 that will show up just in the instruments alone, with no sample! That is what the Taylor and Southon's study of diamonds showed. Diamonds have no C14, in spite of what the lead paragraph of your website claims, so they are an ideal material to use to detect residual amounts of C14 that can be attributed to the instruments themselves. These are background signals that can subsequently be subtracted from readings on real samples. This is just another way that scientists are trying to make the C14 method as accurate as possible. (The exact opposite of young earth creationists.) But this tiny amount of residual C14 inherent in the instruments themselves has been enough to let creationists run wild with their young earth "evidence." See why we don't trust anything creationist claim about C14 dating? They lie! They have to lie because the C14 method directly contradicts their beliefs. I can provide more examples if you want (if you dare).Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
For the technical details I suggest you message another member here, kbertsche. He is more current on that aspect of C14 dating than I am.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Since you have linked to an article with a veritable Gish gallop of nonsense, here is another creationist talking point on C14 that is completely rebutted. (I have more if you want; if you dare.)
Claim: http://blog.darwincentral.org/...%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-iv Want more?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Here is still another rebuttal to a claim by creationists, one which you can find all over the web. This is one of the main creationist "proofs" that C14 dating is inaccurate.
Claim: http://blog.darwincentral.org/...e%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-v Want more?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Another standard creationist claim, found all over the web, totally rebutted. (Want more?)
Claim: http://blog.darwincentral.org/...%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-viReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I would like that a person would argue better for there position. I dont think I will be able to represent them. If, by "there (sic) position" you mean supporting that paper on C-14 dating that was linked above, I wouldn't worry about it. It was junk start to finish, following in a long tradition of junk being posted by creationists regarding C-14 dating. I did several posts discussing some creationist claims, and showing how wrong they were. What more do you want? My posts demonstrated the level of research and accuracy of the creationists--and if you research the web you'll still find those refuted claims all over the place! After that, do you still have any faith in those goofs?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024