franklin
Posts: 16
Joined: April 2013
|
| Quote (REC @ Nov. 13 2013,09:49) | Sal's got another YEC, Paul Giem, on board. Not surprising. What is surprising is their frank discussion of the way they do "science," in this case, C14 dating.
It looks like Giem is saying that they sent samples to a lab (which they won't name) then applied what they claim is the lowest background of C14 ever detected in the lab they sent samples to (without additional controls), and surprise! found C14 in ancient samples. Therefore, the earth is young.
Nevermind that this is a lower background than other labs, or even what the instrument maker claims.
Nevermind the "no sample" control doesn't account for contamination through environment, handling or processing.
No sir, there was C14 in those ancient samples.
Giem, a doctor, actually dismisses the need for controls, and equates this research to a clinical lab. Sure, some hospital labs running very standard assays might run only a few positive and negative controls per batch, and a batch might be half a day's samples, but I'd hope the appropriate controls are there!
http://tinyurl.com/m6n3bdm....m6n3bdm
Its an amazing read. No controls. Phantom significant figures. A magic lab, which must not be named, with mysteriously low background. |
The values they are using for their background corrections are either extremely coincidentally super identical to those found in a 1990 publication or they are indeed correcting current sample analysis with 23 year old data. Precision analytical chemistry at its best.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.p....285
|
