JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:07) | | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,15:54) | Wotta maroon!!
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38) | | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09) | Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.
What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere. |
Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.
How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS? Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion. |
Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.
“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “ (Strahler, 1987, p.158) |
That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:
| Quote | | Quote | | The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate,while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. |
(Strahler, 1987, p.158)
Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. |
IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler.
Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:
| Quote | One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:
| Quote | | On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51) |
(Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph).
What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field.
|
And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article.
Wotta maroon! |
And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html |
The link has been previously posted. And, of course, you did misquote it. You were wrong. And you're still ignoring the refutations of your claims from that article.
| Quote | | ..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda |
Sorry, I assumed you could find the page easily yourself. Obviously I overestimated your capability.
| Quote | Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.
Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002 |
Now there's a scientific and peer-reviewed reference! Let's see his evidence.
| Quote | "In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf ) |
Keenan's qualigfications have already been demolished. I'll just point that that tree-ring studies are regularly replicated correlated to other methods, e.g. U-Th disequilibrium dating of corals and lake varves.
In addition to the references you're alredy ignoring, see How does the radiocarbon dating method work? by a conservative Christian physicist and former staff member of the ICR (he was too honest to last long there).
| Quote | | From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." (Science, Vol.157, p.726) |
ROFL! You think that a quote with so many ellipses indicates anything? But, as presented it doesn't indicate any issues with the method.
|
