JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
[quote=ericmurphy]You know, Dave, you really need to do better than just cutting and pasting an entire webpage from AiG. It's not like we haven't seen these same, wearisome "arguments" presented a million times before, and seen them shot down as flaming ruins a million time as well. Fortunately, since all the hard (well, not hard, but time-consuming) work of refuting them has already done, I don't have to do much work either.[/quote]
Nicely done. Dave'll ignore it. A few comments:
| Quote | | Quote (afdave @ ]6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.[/quote) |
Response:
| Quote |
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history... |
|
This does not acknowledge that Humphreys has a somewhat different model than Barnes. Creationists have made much of the claim that Humphreys' model "predicted" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured. Humphrey's model is discussed at On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field, about 3/4 of the way down, under the heading "Current Creationist Status". Humphreys' prediction is not very impressive.
| Quote | | [quote=afdave]7. Many strata are too tightly bent. |
Response: I don't even need to do any research to rebut this argument, Dave. I heard the rebuttal on a tourist train ride in Campe Verde, AZ. The strata in question were deeply buried, where the temperature is much higher, and subsequently the strata in question were much more ductile than they are at the surface. Deeply buried rock at high temperatures bents much further without fracturing than cooler rock at the surface. Color me unimpressed. |
I might add that hydorostatic compression (technically, equal diagonal terms in the stress matrix) are also key to the folding.
| Quote | [quote=afdave]8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20 |
Of course, DNA experts have not insisted "that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years". In re mitochondrial Eve:
| Quote | 1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.
2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.
Links:
MacAndrew, Alec. n.d. Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve. http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitocho....e> id='postcolor'>
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
OK, this stupid system will not preview or post my next reply, as a standalone message or an edit to an existing message, so I'lkl just jave to post it unformatted
ericmurphy: "You know, Dave, you really need to do better than just cutting and pasting an entire webpage from AiG. It's not like we haven't seen these same, wearisome "arguments" presented a million times before, and seen them shot down as flaming ruins a million time as well. Fortunately, since all the hard (well, not hard, but time-consuming) work of refuting them has already done, I don't have to do much work either."
Nicely done. Dave'll ignore it. A few comments:
"6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast."
"The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. ..."
This does not acknowledge that Humphreys has a somewhat different model than Barnes. Creationists have made much of the claim that Humphreys' model "predicted" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured. Humphrey's model is discussed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html , about 3/4 of the way down, under the heading "Current Creationist Status":
"It is for this reason that I am not impressed by Humphreys' confidence in his theory's ability to predict the magnetic dipole moments for Uranus and Neptune, before the Voyager spacecraft observed them. Humphreys' predictions for Uranus {20, page 146} and Neptune {20, page 147} both state that the dipole strength should be "on the order of 10^24 J/T". He connects these predictions to his theory by selecting a value for k = 0.25 in both cases, computing a dipole strength at creation, and then estimating a characteristic decay time assuming a core conductivity similar to the terrestrial planets. This brings on the estimate of 10^24 J/T, but remember that the dipole at creation is an entirely free parameter. A peek at Humphreys' table II {20, page 147} shows that the dipole for Jupiter is 1.6 × 10^27, for Saturn 4.3 × 10^25, and for Earth 7.9 × 10^22. From these values alone, with reference to no theory at all, one can immediately see that the dipole values for Uranus and Neptune must be larger that Earth's 10^22 and smaller than Saturn's 10^25, so that anything in the 10^23 to 10^24 range is an obvious guess anyway. All Humphreys has to do is come up with a dipole at creation that is about the same as Saturn's is now, and the result is going to be very nearly right. We now know the dipole values for Uranus {3.7 × 10^24 J/T} and Neptune {2.1 × 10^24 J/T}, which do indeed agree with Humphreys' order of magnitude predictions. But to hail this as a confirmation of his theory is not very rewarding. Indeed, it is my position that Humphreys' theory cannot be confirmed, since it predicts at once every possible observed field, and is therefore useless for predicting anything.
Eventually the Humphreys theory has become distinct from the Barnes theory. Humphreys decided that the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed its polarity a number of times is too convincing, and that such reversals must have occurred. In doing so, Humphreys also rejects Barnes' idea that the Earth's field has been decaying exponentially ever since creation, and has instead postulated a more complex history for the magnetic field, built around the presumption that the field reversals happened very rapidly, taking perhaps no more than a few days to a few weeks {23, 24}. Humphreys had already postulated this idea, when he found support from a paper by Coe & Prevot in 1989 {25}, which showed evidence of a rapid change in the angle of the dipole moment of the Earth's magnetic field during the cooling time of a lava flow. Coe & Prevot have expanded on the observations and theory since then {26, 27a} (and so has Humphreys {28}), and the effect certainly appears to be real, or at least credible. Humphreys has interpreted these results as an implication that all field reversals are very rapid, and this allows him to concentrate all of them into the single year of the Genesis Flood. However, one must remember that the results reported by Coe & Prevot include only a few out of hundreds or thousands of examples of field reversal measurements. The vast majority of the known examples would have required the entire reversal to take place while the lava flows were still hotter than the Curie temperature, or worse yet, argue against rapid reversal by recording what appear to be the intermediate stages of a single reversal event. Finally, others have shown that the evident rapid reversals described by Coe & Prevot may be explained by processes not related directly to those in the Earth's core {27b}, but rather by magnetic storm effects that may become significant at the surface of the Earth during a reversal, when the dipole field is relatively weak."
"7. Many strata are too tightly bent."
"Response: I don't even need to do any research to rebut this argument, Dave. I heard the rebuttal on a tourist train ride in Campe Verde, AZ. The strata in question were deeply buried, where the temperature is much higher, and subsequently the strata in question were much more ductile than they are at the surface. Deeply buried rock at high temperatures bents much further without fracturing than cooler rock at the surface. Color me unimpressed."
I might add that hydorostatic compression (technically, equal diagonal terms in the stress matrix) are also key to the folding.
"8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."
Of course, DNA experts have not insisted "that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years". In re mitochondrial Eve:
"1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.
2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is. "
|
|
|
afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
PRE-FLOOD C14 LEVELS: BAD ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LONG AGERS
We have shown that there are easily detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds and that this was a major surprise to scientists when they discovered it thanks to the new AMS technology invented in the 1980s. The RATE Team cites several examples of studies in the past 20 years which ATTEMPT to investigate the source of this C14, but they cannot come up with anything plausible. (See below for one such citation). In situ neutron capture does not account for it either as the RATE Group clearly shows in their calculations (see discussion below -- I can supply more detail if desired). Liquid transport of C14 does not work either unless you apply this to ALL samples dated by C14. Also, why didn't the study cited below mention liquid transport as a possibility? They have NO explanation.
So where we are is that there is far more C14 in coal and diamonds than the Long Agers expected. Just like there is far more helium in zircons than they expected. Hmmm... what to do? Well, we can always take the approach of just saying that Creos are liars and fraudsters, which is the approach taken by some here. Or we could be honest and say ... "Hmmmm ... maybe we should have a look at those assumptions we used for dating the earth at 4.5 Ga."
I hope at least on your deathbeds when you are 5 minutes from meeting your Creator, maybe you will consider some of this information you have been given. Maybe then it will all gel in your minds and the lightbulb will come on and you will say "I get it! The Bible really is true! The earth really is only about 6000 years old. There really was a Flood! There really is a Creator, and I am about to meet Him!" And like the thief on the cross, you too can make your amends with Him before it's too late!
Well, I certainly can't force the lightbulb to come on for you. It either will come on or it won't. It's up to you. But what I can do is continue giving you good information.
Since we (or at least I) have settled this idea that samples supposedly hundreds of millions of years old are dated at 50,000 years by C14, the obvious question is, "Well Dave, I thought you said 6000 years or 4500 years, not 50,000. What's up with that?"
Good question. It comes down to assumptions again, namely about pre-Flood levels of carbon. Again, I will let the RATE Group explain it to you ...
[quote]With a date for the Biblical Flood derived from the Masoretic Hebrew text of only about 4500 years ago, which is less that the C14 half-life, one would expect that C14 in plants and animals buried in this cataclysm to be detectable today. What sorts of C14/C values might we expect to find today in organic remains of plants and animals that perished during this global event which rapidly formed the Cambrian to middle-upper Cenozoic part of the Phanerozoic geological record? Such a cataclysm would have buried a huge amount of C from living organisms to form today's coal, oil, and oil shale, probably most of the natural gas, and some fraction of today's fossiliferous limestone. Estimates for the amount of C in this inventory are typically several hundred times greater than what resides in the biosphere today [Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann, 1992; Giem, 2001]. These studies indicated the bioshpere just prior to the cataclysm would have had, conservatively, 300-700 times the total C relative to our present world. Living plants and animals would have contained most of this biospheric C, with only a tiny fraction of the total resident in the atmosphere. The vast majority of this C would have been C12 and C13, since even in today's world, only about one C atom in a trillion is C14. ... [if we assume similar C14 levels and we assume that] the total amount of biospheric C were, for example, 500 times that of today's world, the resulting C14/C ratio would be 1/500 of today's level, or about 0.2 pMC.[/quote]
They admit that this estimate is not certain, but it's a good guess, and certainly a great deal better than the Long Ager estimates simply because Long Agers don't even account for the Flood at all.
Accounting for the C14 decay over the span of 4500 years since the Flood reduces the pre-Flood level by a factor of 0.6, so that organisms with 0.2 pMC of C14 4500 years ago would display a level of 0.12 pMC today, which of course is close to what we find. So the computed "ages" of C14 are probably off by a factor of 10 or so, speaking in rough numbers.
OK. Shoot me down if you can. But don't try to say something like "There was no Flood." Wait until I give you my evidence for it before you do that. (I shouldn't have to give you evidence for the Global Flood -- the evidence is so enormous, but I will anyway.)
***************************************************
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Eric...[quote]You think you're bringing up arguments we've never seen before. We've seen them all a million times before, and they're stale. [/quote]
Actually, I knew that you have seen these before. But you guys cut and paste your stuff periodically so I took the liberty to do so as well. I have done you the courtesy of copying off your rebuttals into a separate file for later discussion. I assume you C&Ped from T.O. since the supposed rebuttal is all on one link?
Eric...[quote]Dave, you've said half a dozen times so far that "three billion years isn't enough time for this, and it isn't enough time for that, and it isn't enough time for this other thing, either." You have, so far, presented not so much as a tattered fragment of evidence to support this contention, because you have no such evidence. [/quote]
Eric, my friend ... listen ... you cannot even point to ONE example of a mutation which increases information. The truth is that mutations decrease information content. It doesn't take a rocket scientist ... one does not need a formal proof to know that no matter how much time you have, you will not make a jellyfish from a bacteria in 3 billion years or 3B X 3B years if NONE of the necessary mutation add information content. Now do you get it?
DrewHeadley ... Also Eric...[quote]AFD...New information simply does not arise by chance
Please, read Claude Shannons work on information theory. You will see that chance (I take it you mean randomness?) generates the highest information content. Here is a copy of his work: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf [/quote]
No. I mean information. How in the world did you arrive at your conclusion with that paper? It's 55 pages on the Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Eric...[quote]Dave, I know enough about S/N to know how wrong you are. Do you know what percentage of carbon is C14, Dave? About 1.3E10-12%, that's how much. The "signal," after a few hundred thousand half-lives, is swamped in the noise. Doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that no matter how far back you go, the C14 levels never get below a certain point? You can go back to the beginning of time, and you'll still have an irreducible minimum of C14. [/quote]
Yes. It does strike me as very strange. That is precisely why I bring it up. In fact, it is so strange that the AMS labs have been scratching their heads to try to explain it for over 20 years. Eric, you and Aftershave need to get up to speed with JonF. I really did not want to backtrack to cover this basic stuff, but you guys seem to think I'm just dodging, so I will try to help you understand. JonF understands this and he is to the point where the AMS labs are illustrated by this conclusion from Nadeau et al. [2001] entitled, "Carbonate 14C background: does it have multiple personalities?" They analyze many 'old' samples including shells and foraminifera. Here's what they conclude...
[quote]The results ... show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of contamination. ... So far, no theory explaining the results has survived all the tests. No connection between surface structure and apparent ages could be established.[/quote]
OK? Now... let's put all this silliness about SNR's behind us once and for all. The deal is that AMS labs cannot figure out where this contamination comes from. Of course, they will not consider the possibility that the C14 is there because the samples are YOUNG. No one would consider that because they are committed to Long Ages. Well, one of these days, if creationists keep hammering them with the facts, maybe they will. And maybe you will too. Also, Eric, you cannot say that Carbon Dating works for ages up to 60,000 years (this is the figure I read BTW), then turn around and say 'Well, except in the case of coal.'
Eric... | Quote | | And we've told you again and again that that's exactly what one would expect, and you'll get that same value for any carbon source more than 60,000 years old. |
No, no, no. This is NOT what anyone expected when the AMS technique was invented. You guys call me the liar, but the truth is that either you are very ignorant of the history of C14 measurement or YOU are a liar. I just showed you one paper from 2001. There are many more, but I get tired of typing and trying to permeate cement with information. And again, I must keep focused on my primary goal -- to educate MYSELF on these topics and at the same time give Evos a fair shake at trying to dislodge the points of YEC Theory.
Eric... | Quote | | C14 is created all the time by neutron capture due to radioactive decay (among other mechanisms), the same mechanism that creates it in the upper atmosphere, albeit at a lower rate, which is why we see low levels of C14 in buried strata that haven't been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years. This is why, no matter how far back in time you go, you will find an irreducible minimum of C14. |
Yes. If you were really interested in TRUTH, you would spend a few bucks and buy the RATE books. Then you would know that this question is thoroughly treated there. Do you have any idea how much C14 is generated in situ by subsurface neutrons? It's about 9 X 10^(-6) pMC. Do you know how small that is? It's 13,000 times smaller than the mean value of 0.12 pMC measured by the RATE Group in their diamond samples. Not a factor Eric. Probably this is why JonF did not bring this up. He knows that the only hope for long agers is Contamination from somewhere. But he doesn't know where from and neither do the AMS people.
| Quote | | You're the only one who doesn't have an explanation for C14. |
Quite the opposite. You don't have an explanation. I do.
| Quote | | And, I should point out, you've never explained why radiometric dating methods that are actually suited for dating 150-million-year-old deposits, don't also provide dates of 50,000 years. As usual, you completely ignore questions you can't answer. |
Why would I explain that? What does that have to do with anything?
Eric... | Quote | | The earth has been around that long, Dave, and there's overwhelming evidence of it. Not only that, but all the applicable evidence points to the same age. Your "evidence" points to all sorts of ages: 5,500 years (what? you think humans sat on their asses for 500 years before they wrote anything down, when according to you scribes were following Adam around to write down his names for things?), 6,000 years, 10,000 years, 20,000 years, 50,000 years. |
No. My evidence tells me about 6000 years. We are using YOUR assumptions for C14 when we get 20,000 and 50,000 for various samples. We use your assumptions so that you don't get confused with too many issues at once. The 20,000 and 50,000 year sample ages simply show that your multi-million year scenarios have serious problems. Once an open-minded person (other than you) understands this basic idea, then he is enlightened enough to move on to finer detail, namely that the conventional C14 assumptions are wrong and that the supposed 50,000 year date should really be about 4500 years, etc. Are you getting it yet?
OA... | Quote | | No Dave, I asked you for your explanation of the six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. |
Again, if you can show me what they have to do with C14 dating specifically, I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I get to them in my sequence.
Arden... | Quote | Here's the chart AFD gave:
Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et
Here are three additional languages Dave neglected:
Romanian: avea om corp noapte fiu facut bun si
Italian: avere uomo corpo notte figlio fatto buono e
Catalan: haver home cos nit fill fet bo i |
Linguistic evidence, Dave, linguistic evidence. OK. Fine linguistic evidence. I've given it several times. Here it is again. Arden, your chart shows that your 3 languages belong to the same family ... wonderful. We knew that already. Not very novel info. But again, my chart gives more detail in that it shows a definite influence on Spanish by French to produce Portuguese ALL WITHIN the same language family.
We will be talking more about language families in general when we get to th Tower of Babel.
JonF... | Quote | Er, no, Davie-ol'-dork, that's not a lot of discordance; it's an infinitesimal number of discordant dates obtained by people with a known history of fraud in this area. Even if the results are correct (establishing which would take a lot more data than you have posted here, see below), it doesn't support "radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception".
Of course; there aren't any creationist labs. There also aren't any honest creationist geologists. We need third-party analyses of the sample selection and collection methods, location specifications, minerology and microscopic analyses, and the raw dating lab data. Just a table like that, from a pack of known and proven liars, is meaningless.
I note that they did whole-rock analyses of samples from Mt. Ngauruhoe, which is automatically invalid unless they did a heroic job of separating the xenoliths
Quote
(Extra credit: Is there a pattern to the discordance? Yes. What might this indicate?) Fraud. |
There is truly no hope for you. ...
AFD: Isochron discordance is the rule, not the exception
JonF: No it's not
AFD: I have heard that geologists obtain many discordant results, but simply don't publish them -- they trash them with the explanation that they are an 'anomaly.'
JonF: Nonsense. Go prove it to me.
AFD: Well, I'll work on it, but it will take time. In the mean time, here's some results from the RATE Group that show the discordance.
JonF: Yeah, well everyone knows they are Fraudsters.
AFD: Why do you say so? They are highly qualified scientists in their fields. One on the team is from Los Alamos and another from Sandia.
JonF: It's proven that they are fraudsters.
AFD: By what?
JonF: They say the earth is 6000 years old, for cryin' out loud. That's fraud! Just like you. You're a fraud. It's obvious!
AFD: Oh, I see. Thanks for showing me your cards. We'll move on now.
Aftershave... | Quote | | Oh, and you also avoided explaining how you think coal, oil, and chalk beds form, and how an 11,000 YO village in Turkey can exist before your 6000 YO Earth was formed. |
Too easy. Give me some harder questions. Your 1st answer: The Flood. Your second answer: Invalid C14 assumptions. No accounting for pre-Flood carbon levels.
Aftershave... | Quote | | If I don't hear any objections, I think I will post all my C14/C12 calibration data on your blog. |
You cannot post anything on my blog. I shut down comments because some of them were so childish and asinine. In case you have not noticed, I don't really spend much time at MY blog. I'm having too much fun here finding out just how weak the ToE and Long Ages Theory is!
Ved... | Quote | | Do you guys remember the time when dave started counting points that he conceded? He got to one, then stopped. |
That's because you only convinced me of one.
Eric... | Quote | | Ten results, Dave. Ten. Do you know how many rocks have had their ages determined radiometrically in the last half century? Hundreds of thousands, Dave. |
Yes. Hundreds of thousands. WHich means that they probably discarded about 500,000 of them which didn't agree with 'Standard Geologic Time.'
Ghost of Paley... | Quote | | Dave, keep up the good work. You're not just demonstrating the truth of the Bible, but your posts also expose the immaturity of the other side. |
Thanks, Paley. You might want to clarify with these guys. They think you are being sarcastic.
Eric... | Quote | | The question he asked you is as relevant is it is possible to be. He asked you to explain how it could be that six different, entirely independent chains of evidence perfectly corroborate radiocarbon dating. It doesn't get any more relevant than that, Dave. He's not changing the subject to tree rings and varves, etc. They are the subject. The reason we know for a fact that radiocarbon dates are accurate is because they match other dates using completely different, independent lines of evidence. These aren't some "rabbit trail." They directly refute your claims about radiocarbon dating. |
Independent lines of evidence that 'confirm' your interpretation of ages associated with C14 levels are not on topic at the moment. We are talking specifically about the surprising fact that C14 is found in coal and diamonds. I realize that you want to talk about other independent lines of evidence. I do too. But not now.
I have thoroughly refuted your nonsense about SNR's by showing you one example of many of conventional AMS labs having no answer as to why there are detectable levels of C14 in samples which should not have any.
And I have thoroughly refuted your nonsense about in situ contamination by radioactive decay. See above.
Now we are discussing pre-Flood levels of C14.
Arden... | Quote | | A couple weeks ago you said the Indians of North and South America originally had writing but lost it. You offered no proof of this at all. I asked you for proof. You ignored it. Proof now. What is your evidence? |
Answered this long ago. Archaeology has confirmed that civilization began in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago. I know you think that humans lived before that, but your proof is faulty (cave paintings erroneously dated older than 6000 ya). So the only real evidence we have (written records) says that humans have only been on the planet for about 6000 years. And archaeology has shown that they were able to write at least as far back as 5500ya, but doubtless all the way back to Adam, around 6000 ya. I have not shown you the evidence for this yet, but I will. The N. Am and S. Am Indians (and all peoples of the earth) descended from ONE COUPLE and ONE CIVILIZATION, which appeared upon the earth about 6000 ya. They had writing among other things. So all I have to do to show that the N. Am and S. Am indians lost their ability to write is show the plausibility of the Biblical version of human history. You may ask how the Indians got here? The most plausible explanation is that they walked here from Asia via a land bridge -- the Bering Strait -- which was a land bridge sometime close to the time of the Flood because of the lower sea level and massive polar ice caps. The people of Asia in turn migrated east from Mesopotamia. We will cover this in more detail later.
Rilke... | Quote | | And you lied about yourself and your 'military' record. |
Rilke, your looniness defies logic, especially considering that you just got a PhD. First child molestation. You got spanked for that. Then child abuse. Spanked again. Now I lied about my military record? Wow! Words fail me ...
Deadman... | Quote | | and yet Humphreys does in fact compare pressure and diffusivity rates of zircon, rhyolite and later, steel ball bearings, saying pressure would have no real effect... |
Look what you said ... "and yet Humphreys does in fact compare pressure and diffusivity rates of zircon, rhyolite and later, steel ball bearings," ... He absolutely DOES NOT compares pressure and diffusivity rates. He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials. Let me repeat it for you several times so you get it.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.
There. Got it now?
Deadman... | Quote | | Oh, and (5) No you don't really know the Bible, Dave. I pointed out where your claim about.. Civilizations centers existing , THEN the tower of Babel happening...runs exactly contrary to Genesis. If this discussion were just on the errors and lies and contradictions of the Bible, you'd be toast there, too. |
What in the world are you talking about? Civilization existed all the way back to Cain according to the Bible. Have you not read Genesis 4? It talks about agriculture, music and metallurgy. That's the marks of civilization, my friend.
Deadman... | Quote | | But Dave...YOU can't show the same thing with French and Portuguese... not even to the degree that Nahua influenced Spanish. You're not even vaguely honest, Dave |
I've showed you over and over again, but you are too deaf with the noise of your own arguments to listen.
JonF... | Quote | | You have not even acknowledged the existence of the issues that are on-topic and relevant; the correlations between C14 dating and other independent methods; the formation of C14 in-situ by neutron capture; and the transport of C14 by groundwater. |
Show me how the RATE Group is incorrect in showing that neutron capture is infinitesimally small. Show me some papers that study C14 transport by groundwater. I showed you one of researchers that have absolutely no idea where the C14 came from. Also show me why groundwater would not be a problem for other specimens dated by C14. If you throw out my coal and diamonds, you have to throw out many of your things.
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
|
|
Occam's Aftershave
Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote | | OA: No Dave, I asked you for your explanation of the six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. |
| Quote | AFDave...namely that the conventional C14 assumptions are wrong and that the supposed 50,000 year date should really be about 4500 years, etc. Are you getting it yet?
Again, if you can show me what they have to do with C14 dating specifically, I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I get to them in my sequence. |
AFDave’s dishonest attempts at avoiding discussion continue unabated. You think that six independent lines of evidence that confirms the C14 assumptions were correct, evidence that confirms the accuracy of C14 dating, evidence that directly refutes your 6000 YO earth claims, has nothing to do with C14 dating??
| Quote | | OA: Oh, and you also avoided explaining how you think coal, oil, and chalk beds form, and how an 11,000 YO village in Turkey can exist before your 6000 YO Earth was formed. |
| Quote | | AFDave: Too easy. Give me some harder questions. Your 1st answer: The Flood. Your second answer: Invalid C14 assumptions. No accounting for pre-Flood carbon levels. |
No Dave, ‘The FLUD’ is NOT an answer. I asked you for your specific details as to how the fields were formed, including how long it took. Show us some of that ‘sciency’ stuff Dave.
Also, the 11,000 YO Turkish settlement was dated by dendrochronolgy Dave, and merely cross-verified with C14 testing. Once again, you need to come up with a reason as to why the two independent dating methods gave the same age, which is way older than 6000 years.
| Quote | | OA: If I don't hear any objections, I think I will post all my C14/C12 calibration data on your blog. |
| Quote | | AFDave: You cannot post anything on my blog. I shut down comments because some of them were so childish and asinine. |
Translation: Too many people were embarrassing me on my home turf by posting actual scientific data, so I deleted those entries and cut off all discussion.
| Quote | | AFDave :I hope at least on your deathbeds when you are 5 minutes from meeting your Creator, maybe you will consider some of this information you have been given. Maybe then it will all gel in your minds and the lightbulb will come on and you will say "I get it! The Bible really is true! The earth really is only about 6000 years old. There really was a Flood! There really is a Creator, and I am about to meet Him!" And like the thief on the cross, you too can make your amends with Him before it's too late! |
So says Mr “I’m not about religion, I only want the scientific TRUTH!!” 
Every day you sink deeper into your cesspool of lies and evasions Dave. You think Jesus would approve of your actions? How about your fellow Christians? Can you feel those he11fires burning yet Dave? Because if you don’t stop lying and avoiding, you’ll get there sooner than you think.
--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."
- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
|
|
|
[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]
|
