Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Siloam Tunnel dates
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 16 of 25 (57037)
09-22-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Trump won
09-22-2003 9:47 PM


Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
Hey this article also mentions that guy Woodmorappe.
http://www.kc-cofc.org/...pts/EugeneJenkinsDatingMethods.PDF
This article shows some of its flaws
excerpt:
"After about 50,000 years, the amount of carbon 14 will be so small that the fossil can't be dated reliably"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:47 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2003 10:24 PM Trump won has not replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2003 4:07 AM Trump won has not replied
 Message 23 by Rei, posted 10-02-2003 6:41 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 17 of 25 (57038)
09-22-2003 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
09-22-2003 9:51 PM


quote:
Please don't believe all you read on sites like Kent Hovind's. They aim to deceive, like they deceived you with that statement.
I don't read Kent Hovind anymore actually and didn't look at his site for my replies.
[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2003 9:51 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 18 of 25 (57047)
09-22-2003 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Trump won
09-22-2003 10:00 PM


"After about 50,000 years, the amount of carbon 14 will be so small that the fossil can't be dated reliably"
Which is precisely why the scientists that use 14C don't try to use it past that age, except with newer, as yet not fully tried instrumentation and methods. These people are not idiots - they are conscientious workers that know that others will review every speck of their work.
I said "like Hovind." DrDino is far from the only source of BS and disinformation on the web.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 10:00 PM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 25 (57114)
09-23-2003 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Trump won
09-22-2003 10:00 PM


THe first article is pretty dishonest. It asserts that radiocarbon dating can't be calibrated outside the range of recorded history - when that work has been done. In fact we have good calibrations for over 10,000 years (dendrochronology) and reasonable results for over 40,000 years (other methods esuch as the varves in Lake Suigetsu). Both compare radiocarbon against an independant clock.
Eugene Jenkins starts off by ingoring the history of dating - perhaps he doesn't know what he is talking about or perhaps he misrepresents the facts. The truth is that the Earth was determined to be older than a literal reliance on the Biblical chronologies allowed BEFORE evoltuion was formulated, from geology.
Reynolds is WRONG to claim that it is assumed that the radiocarbon contnet of the atmosphere was always constant. In fact we know that it HAS varied. So in fact scientists do not make this assumption - they know that it is false.
THer probable reason is that Reyonolds is relying on creationist sources. Reynolds quote Tohompson as claimign that there are reliable methods of determining the gar of the Earth that show it to be young and that they are left out of the textbooks because they agree with Thompson. That is an outrageous falsehood. If you disagree find just one mreliable method that shows that the Earth must be young.
Then we have the usual "circularity" falsehood - "the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils". Anyone who knows even the basics of geology knows that that one isn't true.
Then we have the usual misuse of carbon dating which ignores the limits of the method and declares that since it gives the results you would expect from such misuse it doesn't work.
I'd say that those articles do a better job of showing the flaws in creationism than anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 10:00 PM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 25 (57116)
09-23-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Trump won
09-22-2003 9:47 PM


So what you are saying is that a guy who died in 1980 knew all the refinements of technique and instrumentation that would be available up to 2003 and beyond ?
Do you think it just possible that Libby was speaking about the current limitations and not absolute theoretical limits ?
If you think that Libby was proposing an absolute limit can you produce an actual source where he said just that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 9:47 PM Trump won has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 25 (59147)
10-02-2003 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
09-21-2003 4:39 PM


Do you have a subscription to Nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2003 4:39 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 10-02-2003 6:38 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 25 (59149)
10-02-2003 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
10-02-2003 6:00 PM


Yep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2003 6:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 23 of 25 (59150)
10-02-2003 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Trump won
09-22-2003 10:00 PM


One thing you might be interested in knowing about the "fossils date the rocks, the rocks date the fossils" line of argument:
There is calibration done on carbon dating, because the rate of carbon formation varies due to levels of solar activity. Also, carbon dating things from after the 1950s/1960s has a huge calibration factor due to nuclear testing, and isn't very reliable.
Throughout most of recorded history, however, the calibration factor in carbon dating doesn't exceed 20%.
Most other dating methods are uncalibrated. They work solely on the decay rates of the minerals.
Furthermore, some dating methods are isochon dating methods, which utilize isotope ratios in addition to individual decay rates, enabling a further cross-check.
To get a "young earth" from dating methods, you not only have to explain why you think they're wrong, but why you think they're all wrong, since they confirm each other (with a few exceptions in experimental cases). Not just why you feel that they're wrong, but how dating methods using isotopes with different half-lives all come up with the same amount that you consider to be "wrong". And if your explanation is that "half lives have changed", why is this no longer observed to occur, and what sort of mechanism could have caused a change in half-lives?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Trump won, posted 09-22-2003 10:00 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 10-02-2003 9:09 PM Rei has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 25 (59172)
10-02-2003 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rei
10-02-2003 6:41 PM


Some thoughts:
Most other dating methods are uncalibrated. They work solely on the decay rates of the minerals.
An interesting confirmation of the accuracy of Ar-Ar dating (an isochron method based on the K-Ar system, although isochrons are seldom plotted) is nailing a 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius within 7 years, even though the samples contained "excess argon" (daughter product that was present at solidfication, beloved of creationists). 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.
Furthermore, some dating methods are isochon dating methods, which utilize isotope ratios in addition to individual decay rates, enabling a further cross-check.
And isochron methods do not presume that there was zero daughter isotope present at solidification. See above.
The vast majority of dating methods used today have some kind of cross-check built into them, and those that don't (e.g. plain vanilla K-Ar) are essentially never reported unless they are confirmed by some other method. The most popular methods today are based on the U-Pb-Th system (partly because the decay rate of U is known more precisely thatn any other). The most popular method in this system is concordia-discordia, which is not an isochron method but is instead a simulatanous use of two different methods. It can often provide a valid age even if the system was not closed since solidification, and indicates when a valid age is not available. (It does involve the premise that there was essentially zero daughter Pb at solidification, but that is justified because it's done only on minerals that reject Pb incredibly well at solidification).
To get a "young earth" from dating methods, you not only have to explain why you think they're wrong, but why you think they're all wrong, since they confirm each other (with a few exceptions in experimental cases). Not just why you feel that they're wrong, but how dating methods using isotopes with different half-lives all come up with the same amount that you consider to be "wrong".
Not just different half-lives; totally different and independent methods of decay (alpha, beta, electron capture). Something that affects beta decay will typically have no effect on alpha decay.
Some tables of concordant dates:
Consistent Radiometric dates
Radiometric Dating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rei, posted 10-02-2003 6:41 PM Rei has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 25 of 25 (66246)
11-13-2003 10:50 AM


Three points about the tunnel.
Firstly, knowing when it was built says npothing about who had it built.
Secondly, as someone interested in folklore, I know that just about any prominent, but otherwise unknown artifact, in an area has a "just so" story about who created it and why. If the local population knew of the tunnel - and I believe it has been open and in use since it was built - when the books of the Bible were being written, and knew its approximate age - not impossible even from folk memory, and early written sources may have mentioned it indirectly, it is not improbable that it was simply attributed to whichever king in the Bible best fitted the known or assumed age.
Thirdly, I am extremely suspicious of the explanation - to provide water for a siege. Simply, it would take too long to build to have been any use in time even digging from both ends, the time to build would have been measured in years, not days. While almost certainly built to ensure security of water supply in a time of war, the concept of it being built because of a particular threat is simply incredible. Even in the 19th Century, with the use of gundowder and steel, not iron, tools, tunnels took years to construct.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024