Page 4 of 9
Re: dating and all that
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:11 pm
by sandy_mcd
madscientist wrote:Havent looked at FM's new link yet, but i think it argues c dating is inaccurate.
The article was published in 2001 in the Mammoth Trumpet by The Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M. [I could find no references to this research in any refereed scientific journal.] The paper claims that some anomalies in C-14 dating (dates too young) in north central North America are due to a cosmic ray event ~ 12,000 years ago. The article was written from an old earth perspective and seeks to explain a few discrepancies (just as living mollusks can be misdated due to nonequilibrated carbon sources), not invalidate the C-14 technique. [Interestingly, such a cosmic ray event is one possible reason for samples having too young a C-14 age - such explanations are completely ignored by Dr Baumgardner, who would rather theorize that decay rates suddenly change in concert.]
Not only have there been no subsequent publications or research, the Mammoth Trumpet followed up the story:
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?a=61 wrote:Update: Article Questioning Radiocarbon-dating Accuracy Draws Fire from Scientists
by Mammoth Trumpet Staff
In "Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times" (MT 16-2), authors Richard Firestone and William Topping theorized that C-14 levels in carboniferous materials, by which the age of organisms and artifacts is measured, are grossly misleading, the result of neutron bombardment from a supernova in late-Pleistocene times that "reset the radioactive clock."
Mammoth Trumpet has received a rebuttal to Firestone and Topping's article from two respected authorities on radiocarbon dating: John R. Southon, Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and R. E. Taylor, Radiocarbon Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California-Riverside. Their rebuttal to the article is printed below in its entirety.
We offered Firestone and Topping the opportunity to respond. After the year that has elapsed since the article was published, however, the authors no longer agree about the events theorized in their article. Firestone's reply is printed below. Topping declined to respond, pending new experimental data.
The journal Radiocarbon seems unaware that "C14 dating has fallen into disfavor and is being abandoned".
Is the earth truly approximately spherical? Some people don't think so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Societymadscientist wrote:Now, it looks like the truth is still unknown, and depends on what 1 really believes... while u say it is reliable, FM says it is not... contradictions. Maybe theres some truth in both, who knows...
James Oberg, NASA engineer and science writer, is famously quoted as observing "You must keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:14 pm
by Forum Monk
There are other factors which skew radiocarbon dating besides, cosmic rays or collisions with comets (by the way Dr. Firestone, hasn't gone away, you may have recently read about the find of tiny diamonds being found in strata 10-13kbp which he claims corroborated the comet impact theory as well as massive megafauna extinctions, but this is off-topic).
Some people believe there was a global flood and that flood contaminated the C14 ratios in specimens. But maybe my brains just fell out of my open mind for suggesting such a thing.
First a non-christian source:
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/Radi ... ating.html
Then another christian source:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
This article is interesting no matter what you believe:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:02 pm
by zoegirl
Forum Monk wrote:There are other factors which skew radiocarbon dating besides, cosmic rays or collisions with comets (by the way Dr. Firestone, hasn't gone away, you may have recently read about the find of tiny diamonds being found in strata 10-13kbp which he claims corroborated the comet impact theory as well as massive megafauna extinctions, but this is off-topic).
Some people believe there was a global flood and that flood contaminated the C14 ratios in specimens. But maybe my brains just fell out of my open mind for suggesting such a thing.
First a non-christian source:
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/Radi ... ating.html
Then another christian source:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
This article is interesting no matter what you believe:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24050.htm
I ahve several problems with your first link. NUmber 1- they do not provide references for their criticisms of C14. Hmmm....I wonder where they get their information, considering their other claims. Number 2- they support the Paluxy misinformation that the dinosaur footprints and human footprints are together on the same fossil bed.
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/EarlyFootprints.html
for one Christian rebuttal against the Paluxy footprints
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... footprints
I can find more...
I have problems with the second one as well, but that would be expected. It trots out all of the usual arguements, nothing new.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:15 pm
by Forum Monk
You're preaching to the choir on those footprints z/g.
Even many creationists have disassociated from that mess.
("creationists" - hmmmm - odd term. aren't all christians "creationists"?)
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:44 pm
by zoegirl
Forum Monk wrote:You're preaching to the choir on those footprints z/g.
Even many creationists have disassociated from that mess.
("creationists" - hmmmm - odd term. aren't all christians "creationists"?)
my point being they are not a trustworthy website, given that they do not post references and still subscribe to a ridiculous piece of non-evidence
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:42 am
by Forum Monk
zoegirl wrote:my point being they are not a trustworthy website, given that they do not post references and still subscribe to a ridiculous piece of non-evidence
Well, its go to know you're checking up on me, and reading the links even if the purpose is to discredit them. I read the "who" behind the first link but not the other articles. My bad. I withdraw it from your consideration.
(after all it had a decidedly YEC bias, right?)
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:19 am
by Canuckster1127
Forum Monk wrote:zoegirl wrote:my point being they are not a trustworthy website, given that they do not post references and still subscribe to a ridiculous piece of non-evidence
Well, its go to know you're checking up on me, and reading the links even if the purpose is to discredit them. I read the "who" behind the first link but not the other articles. My bad. I withdraw it from your consideration.
(after all it had a decidedly YEC bias, right?)
It certainly is legitimate to note when a site has a decided bias and much more so when the arguments and evidence are not documented as to source or support. The whole Paluxy fiasco has been a source of great embarassment and ridicule to the Christian community as a whole and has been unfairly used as representative of the whole Christian community. It behooves us perhaps to work on a site that seeks to interact not only between the YEC and OEC position but also other more secular views to disassociate from such material.
Bias isn't necessarily wrong or bad, it's simply a recognition of the point of view taken. This site, on the main board has a bias, but it in contrast is very well referenced as to the sources utilized.
I'd suggest you not take it personally and see if perhaps the challenge to examine where bias exists and where support is lacking, directs the conversation along a path that is more thoughtful and focused.
c14 for an against
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:03 am
by madscientist
i didnt really have tome to look at the links, but it now seems taht there is more antireliability c14 arguments. as ive read from previous posts, it has been said that the one for c14 reliabiloty (mammoth trumpet) is quite old and has been abandoned and so on and that the authors said the opposite.
it again, shows that science doesnt really lead to
truth but rather changes views often and this is i think one of the leading reasons why some people are mad at it as it changes what it says, doesnt keep constant and people are justified to be upset and confused
. dont they??
And i think this is human nature - you ll believe the last thing u hear. for examole, u hear that and that happened, and after u hear it was not true, u simply believe that new facts have arisen or so. not just science, everything, including what happens in the world, relationships etc - the one who has the last word often tends to be the one who can push the old evidence apart and set in his one. then, later, someone may come and push his evidence apart, andf so on. So the ideology circulates, that it is relaible, then it is not, and so on. To be homest, now i have more doubts about its relaibilty than yestrday...
as ive heard about the corrections upon that article... still not 100% sure, though...
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:23 pm
by sandy_mcd
Forum Monk wrote:Well, its go to know you're checking up on me, and reading the links even if the purpose is to discredit them.
Personally, I'd like think that we are reading your links to evaluate the data given in the links, not checking up on you or trying to discredit the information sight unseen. That's a pretty critical distinction.
1) What scientific evidence would it take to convince you (FM) that C-14 dating is usually reliable? Would any amount be sufficient?
2) We have read your links. Have you looked at any posted in response, in particular the overview that zoegirl supplied?
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:30 pm
by zoegirl
Not looking to discredit, but I have never found a site so far that gives a critique of C14 that doesn't either ignore data or not-pick (yes, there are variations, they have adjusted for those and can validate the data)
Always dislike websites that make blatant statements with no references. Even Wikepedia provides references for most postings, so you can go to the actual sites where they found the information.
Re: c14 for an against
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:37 pm
by sandy_mcd
madscientist wrote:it again, shows that science doesnt really lead to
truth but rather changes views often and this is i think one of the leading reasons why some people are mad at it as it changes what it says, doesnt keep constant and people are justified to be upset and confused
. dont they??
That is a very good point. You should indeed be wary of those who claim that science reveals truth. Science is not about revealing truth, it is about trying to come up with the best models for empirical observations, reducing many data to a simpler representation.
Personally I don't feel that change is necessary a drawback. Suppose I went to the doctor and was diagnosed with some disease but the treatment didn't work. The doctor orders more tests and re-evaluates the evidence. He concludes I have a different yet easily curable problem. Should he let me know so I can get better or should he stick with the wrong treatment so I don't get mad, upset, and confused?
Most of these issues discussed are reasonably complex. I feel radiometric dating is one of the concepts easiest for someone with no scientific background to comprehend. Nonetheless, it does take time.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:45 pm
by sandy_mcd
zoegirl wrote:I have never found a site so far that gives a critique of C14 that doesn't either ignore data or nt-pick (yes, there are variations, they have adjusted for those and can validate the data)
To me, the poor quality of anti-C-14 dating references is almost as convincing an argument for the validity of the technique as the pro-C-14 sources.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:34 pm
by Forum Monk
sandy_mcd wrote:Personally, I'd like think that we are reading your links to evaluate the data given in the links, not checking up on you or trying to discredit the information sight unseen. That's a pretty critical distinction.
I would like to think that also.
1) What scientific evidence would it take to convince you (FM) that C-14 dating is usually reliable? Would any amount be sufficient?
I could ask the same of you in reverse. Some experts I know, in particular one whom I just conferred with last night, claim that C14 is reliable to about 2 half-lifes, mainly because of contamination issues. He also cited examples of egyptian items where the C14 dates are off as much as 200 years for items known to have been made in 7000bc. This person is currently working on an archaeological team excavating in North America. I trust his judgment (he is nonchristian, btw)
2) We have read your links. Have you looked at any posted in response, in particular the overview that zoegirl supplied?
I, like you, read links. First to learn and second to check sources.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:47 pm
by Forum Monk
sandy_mcd wrote:To me, the poor quality of anti-C-14 dating references is almost as convincing an argument for the validity of the technique as the pro-C-14 sources.
That is your opinion and not everyone shares it. I will probably revisit this topic soon as in ties into much of what is discussed on this board.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:48 pm
by hfd
Forum Monk wrote:In order to properly frame this discussion, it becomes necessary to define the world views which fall under this scope. On the one hand there are the several acts of creation by God, as ordered in Genesis and on the other there are the naturalistic processes of stellar forces and spontaneous mutation directed only by selection pressure.
These two world views are diametrically opposed and there can be no middle ground. One is wholly theistic and other wholly atheistic. Therefore the principle of theistic evolution creates an impossible dualism which is theistic-atheistic, an obvious oxymoron.
Additionally it must be acknowledged that the naturalistic world view can not allow for spiritual beings since no naturalistic model can describe how spiritual life would evolve. So again, this becomes very problematic for the theistic evolutionists point of view. So in my opinion there are only two positions in this debate: creationsim or evolution.
This person gets it.