Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the big deal- So Noah had a good eye for weather and knew a hard relentless rains was going to fall- So he builds himself a big boat in the back yard...and loads the thing up with his family and a bunch of animals...The rain comes- they float away...What is there not to believe?
When you put it like that, possible. But when you put it like Genesis, not possible. That, essentially, is it.
Willard Libby won the Nobel Prize for developing the technique. Please show us the source that says he recanted.
You are spouting utter nonsense.
Perhaps the point is that at the time, there was a large error rate, much smaller now the technique is improved, and perhaps the possibility of contamination was realized, though that can be lessened now. The argument that it is unreliable does not really hold water and is just creationist efforts to discredit any science that does not fit their ideas.
Effectively the idea is that conditions added more C14 and adulterated the result. The flaw there is that, ading C 14 would give a more recent date date than would be the true one so a piece of material would actually be OLDER than it appeared to be.
Perhaps the point is that at the time, there was a large error rate, much smaller now the technique is improved, and perhaps the possibility of contamination was realized, though that can be lessened now. The argument that it is unreliable does not really hold water and is just creationist efforts to discredit any science that does not fit their ideas.
Effectively the idea is that conditions added more C14 and adulterated the result. The flaw there is that, ading C 14 would give a more recent date date than would be the true one so a piece of material would actually be OLDER than it appeared to be.
Something the "Young Earth People" do not want to hear, that the error of C-14 dating is that things will be OLDER than what the carbon dating shows.
What's the big deal- So Noah had a good eye for weather and knew a hard relentless rains was going to fall- So he builds himself a big boat in the back yard...and loads the thing up with his family and a bunch of animals...The rain comes- they float away...What is there not to believe?
Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that he built a ship half the size of the titanic without anyway to test to make sure it would actually be able to stand the rigors of the open ocean, let alone a turbulent one, might be a good place to start.
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.” Dr. Robert Lee, 1981
Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that he built a ship half the size of the titanic without anyway to test to make sure it would actually be able to stand the rigors of the open ocean, let alone a turbulent one, might be a good place to start.
Evolution is science? It is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth. The following 12 quotes are from leading and well known scientists and researchers. A larger work with 130 similar quotes is available: "The Revised Quote Book", edited by Dr. A. Snelling, PhD, pub. by: Creation Science Foundation, Australia
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105
"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.
"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28
"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."
Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10
"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
Evolution is science? It is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, ...
etc, etc, etc.
We are very familiar with the creationist method of quotemining. Which is taking odd passages by evolutionists or commentators on evolution out of context and misrepresenting them.
We had a 80 page thread on the subject some years ago and it was demonstrated that each quote - placed in the context of the paper, book, letter or remark in which it was made - modified the force of the comment so that it was no more than saying that the data about evolution has become more complex or that particular strands of theory within the wider theory have had to be changed or (this was a favourite) that the popular and long outdated over-simple perception of human evolution as chimp (or monkey) to man through a 'missing link' (identifiable fossil ancestor) is a 'fairy tale'. So it is, but you can see how the Creationists would misuse that to try to discredit the theory as a whole.
I suggest that you research each of your quotes (Talk Origins has a particular archive on this) to see what what was really being said, before you come and chuck them at us.
For a particular example, under debate recently on these boards, C14 dating and the Dr. Lee quote.
"The next critique concerned the possibility of the contamination of C-14 samples. It was stated thoroughly by Robert E. Lee, an Assistant Editor of the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in a paper published in CRSQ. Lee pointed out the possibility of contamination in the whole dating process, from collecting samples in the field to the final measurements in the laboratories.64 To him, foreign organic matter could possibly intrude into old material. Charcoal and peat, frequently favorable samples for C-14 dating, were noted for their ability to absorb foreign substances. In fact, Bolton Davidheiser, a zoology Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University and later a biology professor at Westmont College and Biola College, also pointed out that C-14 dating seemed to be much more reliable when the materials tested were from areas with dry climates, such as Palestine and Egypt." http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html
As I stated, the question of contamination is understood. That is NOT saying that C14 dating in itself is unreliable, and the quotemining of Dr. Lee is not valid in trying to argue that it is.
"The controversy over the C-14 dating method has not yet been settled. By the late 1940s, radioactive dating was not taken seriously by evangelicals. Although there might be some trace of internal tension, there was not much strife over it among Christians. But the emerging influence of J.L. Kulp in the ASA caused a split in the evangelical Christian community: one group included evangelicals who accepted radioactive dating and the antiquity of the earth and life on the earth; and the other was made up of fundamentalist evangelicals who believed in the global flood and a young earth. Largely because of Kulp's influence, supporters of flood geology and a young earth found themselves increasingly isolated within the ASA...."
From the same paper (I do hope I'm not breaking copyright) which is worth a read in its entirely as explaining the validity of C14, the questions there are about it and the efforts of Young Earth believers to discredit it.
It was simply the first I came to. There are many other refutations of this claim that Dr Lee (or others) virtually declared C14 -dating worthless.
P.s as to changes, where there are other methods of dating such as tree -rings, ice cores or stratigraphy or indeed some written record, the C14 dates - when you have enough of them - do hold up well as accurate.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2013 at 04:27 AM..
Silliness on parade! Denial on display! Intransigence reigns supreme!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Carbon dating is flawed...So don't do your own honest objective research...
Why do you refer to some very old criticisms of C14 from the mid '50s? Can't you follow along on the remarkable improvements in C14 alone?
As well, did you NOT read the self-admissions by leading age & dating scientists since the '50s (!!!) where they have significantly revised their accuracy statements into far more conservative ones? Still does not allow for anything near a mere 6000± young earth.
And in addition your assertions do not allow for all the other contradictions that such a biblical timeline would generate. Too bad for your shoddy pseudo-hypothesis versus our established theory.
But then we also have several very much more and newer sophisticated techniques that offer significantly broader, deeper or more period-accurate methods. Read up on these! They barely touch on the improved methodologies you purposefully choose to denigrate without reason, and in your preferred total ignorance of the breadth of all the latest, and also the oldest, testing regimes:
(Btw, in my own research as a grad bioscientist and geneticist/Evolutionist, I was there when, up at my alma-mater in Vancouver, Canada, they did the finalizing development on improved X-Ray stimulated Fluorescence dating.
And yet, with you knowing essentially nothing technical on the subject, versus my own in-depth understanding, this clearly shows you are, at best, only up to the level of reading, say, a grade 6 level of writing, 45 year old article for grandparents in Reader's Digest and then making ABSOLUTE accuracy disclaimers.
Very Impressive! Just know that, when used in conjunction with C14, and by adding in, say Pott-Argon and/or fission tracking, and X-Ray fluorescence, this deadly investigative combo (to your supercilious argument at least...) puts the accuracy at a stunning ± 5-7 %.
Inarguable unless you then get to add in that your specific God, and none of the other Gods, MAGICALLY altered the decay rates and atomic particle and elemental and rock structure behaviors but...uhmmm...just for when a test is being done anywhere even now, on this planet, and, it seems, just to fool us.
Hmmm... What a egotistical stooge-fool He must be, purposefully standing in the way of truth through logic! What's He so frantically trying to hide anyhow? Hmmm?
Meantime, the now established & accepted levels of inaccuracy still do not alter the outcome hardly enough to dislodge a rational finding of 15M years, versus a staggeringly improbable & too-short ±6000 years.
Then, on the cultural & geological side, we also have generations and civilizations and field evidence that support a far older earth, such as the reliable, less superstitious and far better educated & "writing-down" Chinese from pre-biblical history times, who didn't seem to notice a global inundation of their cultural works. Ditto for the Egyptians who were right in the middle of building their pyramids when the supposed Noahtic Fludd occurred. Hmmm.
So, to recap here: Interestingly when a sample is objectively tested in a proper blind study, and also when we use several of these now-proven techniques together to test the same sample in a true double-blind test process, the cross-sustained dating/aging accuracy is spectacular.
Do take some of your precious assigned daily technical learning time to check this brief summary out. Learn sum'pin, sonny!
In particular do read the subsequent discussion (and don't forget the properly cited papers if you don't like to believe Wiki...) on accuracy calculations and reasonable assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
Paleography places the dates at the same time as well. Or is that also flawed in your expert opinion? And why is carbon dating flawed?
He won't be psychologically courageous enough, or technically able to answer this one since his outdated canned response is as he's been told to rote-chant. He doesn't even comprehend the science itself, just the consequences, Lk!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Because the man who developed it states that it is unreliable...
Where? Please provide a modern quote, citation or commentary please. After all, lots of scientists prefer to improve their pet techniques after reasonable concerns have possibly been professionally peer-reviewed and discussed. I do not remember anyone tossing the entire technique out however. Only in your dreams, Rick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
He never said any such thing. And scouring the internet for information on this brings up nothing either.
"Cause it's not there. Only in some quote-minded bit of techno-fluff made up in fully discredited (and full-on terrified..) Christian websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
Something the "Young Earth People" do not want to hear, that the error of C-14 dating is that things will be OLDER than what the carbon dating shows.
Also v. true. A point they never mention. partly because they don't understand even the basics of the technique, but also because they have not bothered to review the process. Btw, it is useless on no-organic samples, even though those ancient urns were claimed by Christians to have dated by C14 to exactly" 4000 years of age (as I recall), all of a sudden claiming C14 to be oh-so-accurate.
What spectacular intellectual immaturity!
Rick! Did you read those two v. brief Wiki articles yet? The ones in which most of the more common and now v. specialized methods are openly reviewed along with their limitations, but also their unbridled successes?
Oh and here's another article, in a nice graphic form for our less-informed readers (i.e.: Power Point!) on f-t theories:
'Cause remember now: there will be a test tomorrow, and if you don't even try to larn-up a bit, y'all will be seen as WRONG WRONG, you won't get even a lower-level and generously allowed passing grade, and sdo you can't be considered by any mature & reasoning adults for any more participation in these fora!
Iff'n-eye-whur-Yoo-Hoo-Hoo, I'd be buckling down and doing the easy 20 minutes of reading to get a leg up on a subject you so obviously are in a dark cave on right now! After all, otherwise, you might well stub your toe and fall into The pit of purposeful yet fully enjoyed ignorance of unknowingness!
Your choice. We'll see what you chose in the morning, yah? Good reading, m'laddie!
You're way behind on your scientific information...
Really? You have 'information' more recent than the paper mentioned? It was published just over 2 weeks ago.
Sequencing Y chromosomes resolves discrepancy in time to common ancestor of males versus females.
Science. 2013 Aug 2;341(6145):562-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1237619.
Try again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Silliness on parade! Denial on display! Intransigence reigns supreme!
