Continued debate ... (... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material) sequel four

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Brooks Anderson

Carbon 14 dating is not used AT ALL for dating Cretaceous, Permian or Carboniferous rocks because they are tens to hundreds of millions of years old.(there are other ways) Carbon 14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years before present. I' ve had relatively recent (~37,000 to 43,000 radiocarbon years) bp coral reef rocks from Guam start giving conflicting dates because the remaining radioactivity was so slight. Any educated geologist knows not to waste money dating those older rocks with C14. I,m afraid that you have exposed your lack of knowledge about the subject by your self-assured statements. (old geologist)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon 14 is not used to date non-organic rocks per se. (Coral reefs are obviously not non-organic).

It is used routinely to date bones or fossils found in the rocks. Except when rocks are considered too old for a Carbon 14 date to be worthwhile.

However, creationists have taken samples from at least Cretaceous dino fossils and from probably Carboniferous or perhaps Silurian carbon deposits, as well as from petrol. And sent in to labs doing C-14 tests, without telling them what it is about. The THEN answers are usually, according to their claims, 20 - 50,000 years B. P. Dates which we can reinterpret as "from time of Flood" by assuming that by then the Carbon 14 level was not yet near the modern one, but vastly lower in an initial buildup stage.

That is what I am talking about here.

Brooks Anderson

O.K. I must admit that I've never heard of such a nutty use ofn C14 dating.

[Oh, btw, though I didn't notice then, this statement makes who exactly "selfassured"?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, it might be an idea to give you some material about it.

Enjoy the read, and do feel free to comment:

CMI : Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
by Carl Wieland
Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/c14-dinos

Brooks Anderson

Thank you for the offer, However, I long ago decided that there is no point in arguing with creationists, They believe in magic and evidence-based "proofs" carry no weight with them. I morn for the "dumbing-down" of my USA by our corporate-bought politicians and the simple-minded creationists.Good luck in your efforts.

Mike Hardman
[I link to what his name icon says, but get a 404]

+Edmond Dantez Who calibrates this data? what if those millions of year are actually months? How would they know? have any of them sat and watched this carbon dissipate for 1 million years in order to determine that it actually requires said amount of time as calibrated to conjecture the time required ? who has physically observed this?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl and being from time of flood, it makes since given that is what is required to create a fossil, i have yet to hear of a fossil found that wasn't buried in sediment , they always say, either buried by a flood/sand storm,.. other wise it wouldn't become a fossil, it would rot, lol

+Brooks Anderson Why do you deny Gods existence? You chose to believe a formula based on conjecture over the all mighty Creator? There is so much proof dinosaurs and man coexisted known today that has been suppressed for 2000 years coming out in the open and so many discoveries of proof of global flooding and catastrophes as described in the text world wide by so many different people who have never met, how can anyone this day and age still buy that Darwinism gobble?? The dirt/rocks/water that is here is the same age 3000 feet bellow as it is right under your feet. its 1 rock, Earth. how can you even think that dirt 5 feet below is older than dirt on top? its all from 1 thing, it cant age differently,... is your arm older than your leg? 

[If dirt was deposited and wasn't there from creation, dirt on top of hard rock layers are obviously at least somewhat older than dirt at the bottom. But whether its five minutes older or five million years older is of course quite enother question.]

Edmond Dantez
[linking for source, but you don't need to go there.]

+Mike Hardman "Who" calibrates this data is thoroughly irrelevant. Physics makes it possible to accurately determine the decay rate of isotopes.

[Whether or not he is right, after this he has no right to tell anyone "who are you to" - because logic, available to all men, makes it possible to evaluate logic plausibility of his claim.]

If this method were not accurate, every nuclear reactor on the planet either would produce no power or would long since have blown up.

In addition, they are calibrated against multiple objects of known age when possible (as is the case with radiocarbon dating) and then against other methods known to be reliable. Only when all these methods agree are they then considered reliable. It is also important that samples are chosen appropriately and methodologies are consistent.

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez hahahaha,.. what a load of horse shit.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman "A formula based on conjecture"??? WTF are you talking about?

What "all mighty creator"? Never seen one of those or any evidence for one, sorry.

"So much proof dinosaurs and man coexisted"? None. Zero. The only evidence I've ever seen presented was completely without merit, total conjecture or outright fraud.

"Proof of global flooding"? Again, None. Zero.

DNA is the nail in the coffin of any denial of evolution. Just as it can establish with virtual certainty good enough for a court of law, the paternity or familial relationships between individuals, so by the same evidence and methodology, it can establish familial relationships between species. Evolution is a undeniable FACT.

Brooks Anderson

Mike: You clearly are a troll. If not, please change your citizenship. You are confirming people's notions that the USA''s educational system is that of a "third world" country.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman Wait, you ask a question to which I present a clear and documentable answer and then out of nowhere, just call my answer "horseshit"? Do you have any evidence? Would you like to present an argument or just continue to look like an abusive idiot?

[A thing you should keep in mind he said to Mike when you read what he'll be saying to me.]

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez you present nothing but more conjectures. some guy in the field of science makes a claim based on no observational proof is in fact horse shit. you gave no answer, you avoided the question. and that is your perspective. I am no more an abusive idiot than you are at this point.

Mike Hardman

+Brooks Anderson Clearly you can't answer anything with out conjectures or insults.

[And remember, Brooks Anderson is the Geologist!]

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman Do you understand that if what we know about radioactivity and isotopes was incorrect, that nuclear reactors wouldn't work or would blow up? Do you know anything about what radioactivity even is?

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez shush troll.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman This is not conjecture. This is fact, which can be documented by even a cursory investigation of science at a high school level.

[The more cursory and the more limited to high school level, the better he might like it, even?]

+Mike Hardman Even just the Wikipedia article on the subject and the peer reviewed articles you could find in the citations would demonstrate that your objections are nonsense.

+Mike Hardman Take your own advice. You're the troll.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brooks:

"However, I long ago decided that there is no point in arguing with creationists"

What do you think you are doing on this thread? There is more than one creationist here!

One thing is certain, with your attitude you are basically, as far as you can, guaranteeing yourself not to find out if you were wrong and we right.

"They believe in magic and evidence-based "proofs" carry no weight with them."

You mean we believe in the miraculous - provided there is a God in with the explanation to make the miracles - and atheist methodology carries no weight with us. As is indeed the case.

"I morn for the "dumbing-down" of my USA by our corporate-bought politicians and the simple-minded creationists."

Without corporate bought politicians, there might not have been all that much Darwinism in the first place. At least not via public school system.

@Mike:

"i have yet to hear of a fossil found that wasn't buried in sediment , they always say, either buried by a flood/sand storm,.. other wise it wouldn't become a fossil, it would rot, lol"

Good point. If not positively proving the one great flood at least perfectly compatible with it. But earlier here on the video, we saw what I would even consider proof : a river flooding so high that it drowns fording sauropods and that in Patagonia - I don't think the steepest river flows today (like Brahmaputra) could have done it with so large animals.

@Edmond Dantez

"Physics makes it possible to accurately determine the decay rate of isotopes."

Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem.

"If this method were not accurate, every nuclear reactor on the planet either would produce no power or would long since have blown up."

The decay rates in the nuclear plants are hastened very much compared to the usual half lives, so you have no good point there.

"In addition, they are calibrated against multiple objects of known age when possible (as is the case with radiocarbon dating) and then against other methods known to be reliable."

With radiocarbon and historically dated objects - no problem.

But when you get to K-Ar or U-Pb or Th-Pb the undisputed history is so short that it gives no foothold for a calibration. When you calibrate those, you calibrate against objects whose age is "known" through:

* other similar method * radiocarbon carried past the historic calibration on contested supposition the initial build-up was so far back it is irrelevant * or biostratigraphy.

In other words, with these longer methods you calibrate against "known" ages that aren't really known.

And if you want to suggest that the exact speed of decay can be accurately measured, think again.

Radiocarbon isn't used for ages further back than 40,000 years ago, because, they say, carried back beyond that the margin or error becomes too great.

In other words, for measuring the decay rate of K-40 or of U whichever of the two isotopes they use, the margin of error may also be too great to get any useful result.

"Only when all these methods agree are they then considered reliable. It is also important that samples are chosen appropriately and methodologies are consistent."

And when some methods disagree vastly with the rest, they are considered unreliable and discarded as irrelevant. But the number of discarded datings might be relevant for reliability of methods.

@Brooks again:

"Mike: You clearly are a troll. If not, please change your citizenship. You are confirming people's notions that the USA''s educational system is that of ab "third world" country."

In other words, you are measuring excellence of US educational system by its agreement with a Communist standard of progress.

How unpleasant for people not sharing it to live beside you, if they do!

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem." ... NO DUMB-ASS! U235 HAS A HALF LIFE OF 700 MILLION YEARS AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE OF PHYSICS! IF WE HADN'T ALREADY KNOWN THIS WHEN WE STARTED BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEY EITHER WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED OR WE'D HAVE BLOW OURSELVES UP! YOU'RE A [blip]ING IDIOT!

"The decay rates in the nuclear plants are hastened very much compared to the usual half lives, so you have no good point there." ,,, OF COURSE I DO AND YOU JUST MADE IT FOR ME! IF WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS WE WOULD LONG SINCE HAVE BLOWN OURSELVES UP, YOU [blip]ING MORON!

"And if you want to suggest that the exact speed of decay can be accurately measured, think again." ... NO, I WON'T "THINK AGAIN" AND I'M NOT "SUGGESTING" IT I'M SAYING IT OUTRIGHT AND HAVE ALSO PROVEN IT.

"And when some methods disagree vastly with the rest, they are considered unreliable and discarded as irrelevant. But the number of discarded datings might be relevant for reliability of methods.!" ... EXAMPLES? OF COURSE NOT!

[And he got upset over Mike calling a reply of his a "load of horseshit"?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

["Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem.]

" ... NO DUMB-ASS! U235 HAS A HALF LIFE OF 700 MILLION YEARS AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE OF PHYSICS!"

Will you be precise as to our method of so called knowing this?

"OF COURSE I DO AND YOU JUST MADE IT FOR ME! IF WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS WE WOULD LONG SINCE HAVE BLOWN OURSELVES UP, YOU [blip]ING MORON!"

We do know how it works when decay rate is sped up.

PLUS we have blown ourselves up a few times too.

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Really? When the [blip] was that?

Health Physics Society : Public Information :
Answer to Question #8270 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8270.html

Read up, [blip].

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Citing first paragraph, which so far totally confirms what I observed:

"As you have apparently inferred, when a radionuclide has a half-life that is long compared to the time interval over which radioactive decay observations are possible, the overall decay rate remains substantially the same and experimental measurements of the change in the activity of a given sample with time are not sufficiently precise to allow determination of the half-life. In such instances, one must employ alternative techniques to evaluate the half-life."

And answering when question : Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Oh, sorry, that was the where question ... but it will help you out with the when question.

"The estimated uncertainty in this value is approximately 3 x 10⁶years."

So, that is the estimated uncertainty? The real one could be bigger?

We have, as I stated in posing the problem, not very direct methods of checking that.

"Naturally, the numbers used in the example were contrived, and the uncertainty in the result would have to consider all the uncertainties involved in the measurement."

Which might mean sth was overlooked.

"We have also not considered the complication associated with possible interference from ²³⁴U, which also occurs in natural uranium and also decays by alpha emission. Counting using alpha particle energy spectrometry is effective in separating the alpha particles from the two uranium isotopes."

Wow ... no doubt at all, like?

As to the actual method, I think I'll try understanding its terms when I have less of a fever and cold.

As presented, it sounds like a shortcut around the problem I posed, but it also implies there might be some complication getting the mol totally right, som complication getting the alpha particles nickel and so on. In other words : I am so far sceptic of this being a real way round.

But, even if it were, the problem of radioactive decay being hastened, like by nuclear wars in Nodian civilisation or like a non-plant hardmelt during Flood, plus in quite a few cases the problems of knowing original amount (hint : for K-Ar the amount of Ar is pretty certainly not a reliable corrective for amount of K originally there), make the actual datings moot.

Mike Hardman

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

[Yes, Sir Redneck! Dis iz vot tepate looks like ven contuctit among people vid sum academic packround! Flip flop iz exactly right! Zo klat you notit it!]

[Wrote previous snide comment before noting his google+ was a 404. He might be in trouble for having spoken up for the truth here.]

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl None of those reactor accidents had anything to do with misunderstanding nuclear reactions, they had to do with the failure of mechanical safety systems and none of them blew up in a nuclear sense so you're incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, but in that case the very exact understanding you pretend we have, including of the non-hastened half life being 700 million years for one isotope, are maybe not that necessary either for avoiding accidents.

[Any more than totally useful. See Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima.]

If by "none of them blew up in a nuclear sense" you mean none of them went atomic bomb, that is correct, but all three went close enough to do major harm.

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Your understanding of the issues you're trying to argue is abysmal. You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we obviously do. Those are just facts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we obviously do."

Correction:

You mean: You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we do.

"Those are just facts."

Correction:

You mean: Those are facts.

Cut out "obvious" and "just". I may or may not take another look at the method they propose but I am not cinfident in advance, and your insulting tone is a moment of irritation which impedes me from actually doing so - on top of being unwarranted.

And of course: "Your understanding of the issues you're trying to argue is abysmal."

Correction: leave the sentence totally out. It does not belong in civilised debate.