by skyking 48 Replies latest watchtower bible
investigated 14 C in a number of diamonds. 7 There should be no 14 C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years!
And here is a rebuttal to this dismal piece of insipid inaity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-o7ArSeSOY
sigh...
[inkling]
Sad to say as there is already loads of proof a literalistic Biblical Flood could not have happened, one more piece of proof that it didn't happen will make no difference to believers in the literalistic Biblical Food.
Their belief systems are not based on proof, they are based on presuppostion and assertion and they are selective with their evidence. Considering the amount of scientific papers on dating and evolution published in 20 years it's always funny how when you shake-down a Biblical literalist's apologisms, any quote from a real science paper is decades old, or our of context, or both.
Perry and Jcanon will believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is produced to the contrary. It's a pathology. Now, the question is where is hooberus? LOL.
First and foremost JC - was is bourbon? I still haven't come to a conclusive decision - is it a type of whiskey? (I'm being serious about this by the way)
About the flood and the trees - perhaps there was a localised flood in the valley where Noah lived - and he obviously didn't live in sweden.
Perry,
It seems your tactic is to simply present any evidence, regardless of credibility, that will discredit carbon dating's implied threat to Biblical timelines. It's as if you're just looking to cast doubt using any contrary evidence rather than present a real concern for accuracy. Thus my assertion that some Bible believers often are just looking for a crutch - no matter how reliable - to support their beliefs.
For example: In your first post you claimed:
"The carbon 14 dating basic assumption is that the earth today is the same as it has always been."
Yet, information was subsequently presented that clearly shows carbon fluctuations are considered, quantified using multiple unrelated measures, and now results in methodology that yields an ever increasing degree of accuracy out to ~45000 years. So do you cling to your original idea that Carbon Dating methods assume a constant CO2 concentration? Or do you simply move on to a different way to discredit the implied threat?
If a person only accepts information complimentary to their beliefs and rejects contrary evidence, do you see how that person would be vulnerable to persisting in a belief based on false premises?
Man that guy was creepy in the video.
My question to him would be how does he know that Uranium contaminated the diamond samples? Well, the answer is obvious....it must have because they are billions of year old.
His response is dissatisfying to me.
Yet, information was subsequently presented that clearly shows carbon fluctuations are considered, quantified using multiple unrelated measures, and now results in methodology that yields an ever increasing degree of accuracy out to ~45000 years. So do you cling to your original idea that Carbon Dating methods assume a constant CO2 concentration?
 | Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. Cosmic ray protons blast nuclei in the upper atmosphere, producing neutrons which in turn bombard nitrogen, the major constituent of the atmosphere . This neutron bombardment produces the radioactive isotope carbon-14. The radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and is incorporated into the cycle of living things. The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant, so that by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made. |
I'm confused, this university says that carbon 14 forms at a rate that appears to be constant. Yet Freewilly says that past rates of formation must be "calibrated".
Who does the calibration? On what science is that based. Does the calibrators pre-conceived notions affect what samples get calibrated and which ones don't. Are there any blind tests that show the calibrators are sometimes wildly off?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC6WNDSL6uw&feature=related
Here's another bit of evidence that needed "calibrating"
I'm confused, this university says that carbon 14 forms at a rate that appears to be constant. Yet Freewilly says that past rates of formation must be "calibrated".
Are you really confused? I don't think you are. Your original contention was that historic levels fluctuated and that these fluctuations have not been considered. Now you object to the fact that dating methods accomodate and quantify fluctuation to produce a more accurate measure. The concept is rather simple yet you claim you are confused.
I see you didn't answer the question. Are you claiming that modern Carbon Dating methodology assumes a constant CO2 concentration? Yes or No, and why?
Who does the calibration? On what science is that based. Does the calibrators pre-conceived notions affect what samples get calibrated and which ones don't. Are there any blind tests that show the calibrators are sometimes wildly off?
These are great questions. Maybe you should resolve these before you draw conclusions? I would have assumed you researched this already, as well as you claim regarding concentration before making a judgement. The fact that you have not looked into these issues before casting judgement implies that there's more at stake for you than simply an objective quest for understanding.
Now you object to the fact that dating methods accomodate and quantify fluctuation to produce a more accurate measure. The concept is rather simple yet you claim you are confused.
Freewilly, please calm down. May I remind you of your accusation against me?
It's as if you're just looking to cast doubt using any contrary evidence rather than present a real concern for accuracy.
I presented the University of Georgia's statement that "The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant".
This isn't my statement, it is that from a reputable institution. I happen to have some dealings with the University of Georgia and know that they are a first class research institution.... at least as it pertains to avian diseases.
The point to my questioning is, essentially; how could anyone replicate ancient conditions, since they weren't there, and they have no way of for sure reproducing those conditions and testing their hypotheses in a lab?
Answer me that. Read your Dawkins for heavens sakes. ;-)
Perry, why do you expect US to teach YOU about a subject you clearly already consider yourself to be well informed about to make sweeping statements about?
Don't you know how they calibrate C14 dating? If you don't, how can you say it is inaccurate?
Now, if you're willing to say "I don't know how they calibrate C14 dating and don't want to learn, please someone tell me", I'll tell you.
If you do know and have a question about it or criticism of it, then say that and I'll respond.
Anything else is just bluster and evasion on your part.
Perry, why do you expect US to teach YOU about a subject you clearly already consider yourself to be well informed about to make sweeping statements about?
Inrainbow, who is the "US" that you are referring to? Are you more than one person(ality)? Tell those demons in there to hush up! ;-)
I'm not a scientist. So, like most people I rely on Universities as one source of reliable information. This is what I did. Here:
The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant.
Don't you know how they calibrate C14 dating? If you don't, how can you say it is inaccurate?
Of course I don't, that's why I asked to explain it since the statement seems to be in conflict with the statement from the University of Georgia above. I never said that it was inaccurate, someone else said that I said that. I am unconvinced at this point though.
I asked some questions to support the seemingly conflicting statements with U of G and so far all that's been done is accuse me of "bluster and evasion". That is not an answer. It appears to be the exact thing that I'm accused of.
Let me put the questions to you in a numbered fashion and then you can respond to them one by one, OK?
1. If the University of Georgia says that the rate of C14 production is constant and other sources say that they are not, which one is true?
2. Do you think that the premises of the U of G and the other sources than I'm sure you'll find that disagree would sometimes produce a different result from each other in their C 14 tests?
3. For the sources that claim that calibration is needed, do you think that their preconceived notions of age affect the calibration process?
4. Why do C14 labs ask the ones submitting samples to tell them the "expected" age?
5. Can you explain the 'science" behind the calibration process?
6. Do you think that the scientists in charge of the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones in the video clip I presented above, would ever in a "million years" allow that soft tissue to be C14 dated in blind tests? Or, would hell freeze over first?
Again, I'm not a scientist. I have learned to question those who claim to have some sort of title deed to truth apart from God's Word though.
