Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2007,02:58)|
|Sal is reduced to doing a AFDave and making up "data" |
|The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.|
There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.
So, C-14 is flawed beyond 1000 years.......Sal generates some random numbers, plots them on a graph and disproved C-14 Dating. Nice.
On a different thread Sal quotes John Stuart Mill
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …
Indeed Sal, indeed....
It's even funnier than that!
The colored points on the graph are actual empirical data from peer-reviewed studies. They show that the racemization constant for the amino acid decay in NOT constant but decreases with time.
The equation Sal uses to generate his red line is an approximation that was derived from that empirical data.
OF COURSE if you plug any numbers into it you're going to get the same sloping line SAL YOU FUCKING MORON
The green line that Sal says is the "good" data is what you get if you assume the racemization constant IS actually constant over time. Problem is, both YEC authors that Sal is drawing from acknowledge that is NOT the case
| M Brown: Let's look at the graph below. If Amino Acid dating was a predictable process, like other dating techniques with a predictable rate, the points on the chart would align themselves in a horizontal line. That would indicate that the Racemization constant really is a constant. It would mean that this method would be able to predict an age by itself. It would indicated that the rate would be the same rate for all the samples collected.|
This is definitely not the case. Looking at the graph we can see that the Racemization constant changes almost as much as the predicted date!
|RH Brown: The most impressive immediate impact of these plots is that for a particular amino acid there is no characteristic racemization rate constant that can be used to estimate the age of every fossil containing that amino acid. If each amino acid could be described by a characteristic racemization rate constant as a component of fossil protein, the data points in figures (3) and (4) would cluster about a horizontal line. The demonstrated clustering about a line which slopes downward indicates that the apparent racemization rate constant is actually not a constant, but is related to fossil age, diminishing as age increases. This observation has been made frequently in the literature (e.g., Lajoie et al. 1980, Bada and Schroeder 1972, King and Hare 1972, Wehmiller and Hare 1971, Hare and Mitterer 1966).|
So not only does Sal not understand C14 dating, he doesn't even understand the YEC articles he is arguing!
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC