695 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

cormac mac airt, on 25 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

No the fault isn't yours, nor Swede's nor anyone elses other than Harsh who doesn't want to understand C14 dating. He wants to present it as something it's not, so he can play fast and loose with ancient history.

cormac

And what gets mu gout about it is that it has been posted in at least a dozen threads (if I am not mistaken I did in this thread) why it works. We are experiencing a very interesting case of selective perception here.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 25 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I honestly don't think Harsh understand the principle of the C14 isotope. This idea of "stabilization" is a good example. What does that even mean? I've gotten frustrated trying to explain C14 dating to Harsh, so I don't know how much more would be worth the effort on my part. Harsh needs to do at least some basic research on the issue, and needs to use legitimate scientific sources to do this research. Swede's preceding post is particularly helpful, I think, in explaining how the C14 isotope can and has varied in the atmosphere down through time. It can be affected by numerous influences, which is why the amount of C14 one finds in an organic artifact from 3000 BCE might represent a different level of C14 availability than might an organic artifact from 15,000 BCE.

I don't know, the fault might be mine in not explaining it well enough, but how in the hell is C14 supposed to stabilize?

carbon 14 has problems. It is based upon the assumption that the rate of the formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere is equal to the rate of decay. This is not true. Dr. Libby, who invented the method, says it must be true because it would only take 30,000 years for equilibrium to be established, for the rate of formation to be equal to the rate of decay. He says everyone knows that the earth is over 30,000 years old so carbon 14 must be in equilibrium. Yet the latest studies indicate the rate of formation is not equal to the rate of decay. If allowance is made for Libby's erroneous assumption, the corrected carbon 14 dates come back to within the last 5000 years. But even then there are still problems. Carbon 14 analysis, as in the case of other dating methods, does not really determine anything about age; it simply tells you the amount of carbon 14 found in a substance. Carbon 14, formed in the upper atmosphere, filters down into the plants, and one eats either plants or things that have eaten plants. Therefore, a certain amount of carbon 14 is trapped in your body and bones. Scientists measure how much is present and, based on the half life of carbon 14, they project back in time to see how long you must have been around. Theoretically, that is how ages are determined by carbon 14. But there are some problems again, because penguins living in the Antarctic today have yielded 3000 year old carbon 14 ages when tested. Seals killed recently gave ages of 1000 years...


Constant C-14 to C-12 proportion

There is one fact that makes it highly unreasonable to believe that the proportion of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as it has been in recent history: It is not in equilibrium.
The rate of C-14 production today is 18% higher than the rate of decay (Whitelaw). This means that today we are experiencing a net increase in the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine whether it has always been increasing (as argued by some creationists) or whether it has undergone cycles of increase and decrease (as argued by other creationists and evolutionary scientists). But one thing is certain: there is no reason to believe that the C-14:C-12 proportion has been constant throughout time, and good reason to believe it has been different, and often lower, in the past than it is today.
If the C-14 content of the atmosphere was lower in the past, that means that Carbon dating results today are inflated, because the calculations will mistake the absence of C-14 in the original sample asyears which passed by causing the C-14 to decay.
Recognizing this, many uniformitarian scientists calibrate their dating efforts to the early 19th century, in the belief that today's C-14 increase is due to the industrial revolution. This assumes, however, that today's C-14 increase is only the result of the industrial revolution (which is unfalsifiable) and that the proportion was in equilibrium prior to the 19th century (which is also unfalsifiable). In other words, while acknowledging the problem posed by the increasing C-14, the uniformitarian scientists have failed to solve it, and yet continue to use the methodology.

[questionmark]

Harsh86_Patel, on 26 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

carbon 14 has problems.

Evidently only then when it does not befit your (and the rest of the creationists) brain maxturbation.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 26 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

carbon 14 has problems. It is based upon the assumption that the rate of the formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere is equal to the rate of decay.

The statement quoted above is false.  C14 dating makes no such assumption.

Harsh86_Patel, on 26 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

This is not true. Dr. Libby, who invented the method, says it must be true because it would only take 30,000 years for equilibrium to be established, for the rate of formation to be equal to the rate of decay. He says everyone knows that the earth is over 30,000 years old so carbon 14 must be in equilibrium.

It has always been known that C14 varies.  The simpleton's version of C14 dating is to pretend that the raw date you get back is the correct one because of the claimed equilibrium between new C14 and old C14.

In fact, it has been known since the onset that C14 varies.  Of course it's been known.  We've known for a long time that cosmic rays create C14 in the atmosphere while simultaneously knowing for even longer that cosmic ray influx is highly irregular, i.e. not in equilibrium over time.

This is why C14 dating requires other means of dating to go along with it.  IOW, nobody ever takes a C14 by itself to have any real meaning whatsoever.  The creation of calibration tables for C14 dates will always be an incomplete process, but it's getting better and covers more epochs today than ever before..

Harsh86_Patel, on 26 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Theoretically, that is how ages are determined by carbon 14. But there are some problems again, because penguins living in the Antarctic today have yielded 3000 year old carbon 14 ages when tested. Seals killed recently gave ages of 1000 years...

What you've uncovered here is the fact that we are today ruining C14 dating for our ancestors.  This is because we are burning fossil fuels which have very little or even no C14 content (due to their age) and thus are putting much more "regular" carbon into the atmosphere than would normally have occurred.

Couple this with the fact that both penguins and seals eat sea creatures, and sea creatures either eat calcium carbonate or eat other creatures that eat calcium carbonate - and calcium carbonate contains some very old carbon - and, if you cared to think for one moment about it, you could see why these so-called "anomalous" ages are returned from these bogus samples.

Also, what's wrong with a 1,000 year age estimate for a recently living seal?  That's within the margin of error given with the vast majority of C14 dating results.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Harte, on 26 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
...


What you've uncovered here is the fact that we are today ruining C14 dating for our ancestors.  This is because we are burning fossil fuels which have very little or even no C14 content (due to their age) and thus are putting much more "regular" carbon into the atmosphere than would normally have occurred.

Couple this with the fact that both penguins and seals eat sea creatures, and sea creatures either eat calcium carbonate or eat other creatures that eat calcium carbonate - and calcium carbonate contains some very old carbon - and, if you cared to think for one moment about it, you could see why these so-called "anomalous" ages are returned from these bogus samples.

Also, what's wrong with a 1,000 year age estimate for a recently living seal?  That's within the margin of error given with the vast majority of C14 dating results.

Harte

Just to add, Harte, I would ignore that portion of Harsh's post. I am not saying Harsh is being dishonest, but clearly the source from which he's drawing his information is written by someone who is either amazingly poorly informed or just plain devious in trying to twist basic facts about the science.

There is no "age" for C14 isotopes, per se. They are ingested or absorbed by living organisms based on the atmospheric creation of the isotope at any one point in time. The C14 isotope did not exist before this event because it became a C14 isotope from a nitrogen isotope during this process. The only way the dating of the C14 isotope comes into play is when the organism which ingested it has died and can accumulate no more of the isotope.

It is the decay of the isotope (based on a known rate) which produces the date the organic organism died. The results are calibrated to confirm accuracy. Therefore, a modern organism cannot be subjected to C14 analysis because the C14 it has absorbed has only begun to decay—and the half-life rate for C14 is over 5,000 years. In other words, if you date something modern, it will zero out.

In writing this, Harte, I am perfectly aware that you already know all of it. I'm just tired of dealing with Harsh face to face. I mean, I have no idea where he got that stuff Libby was supposed to have said. What in the hell are his sources? Like the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 27 November 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Just to add, Harte, I would ignore that portion of Harsh's post. I am not saying Harsh is being dishonest, but clearly the source from which he's drawing his information is written by someone who is either amazingly poorly informed or just plain devious in trying to twist basic facts about the science.

There is no "age" for C14 isotopes, per se. They are ingested or absorbed by living organisms based on the atmospheric creation of the isotope at any one point in time. The C14 isotope did not exist before this event because it became a C14 isotope from a nitrogen isotope during this process. The only way the dating of the C14 isotope comes into play is when the organism which ingested it has died and can accumulate no more of the isotope.

It is the decay of the isotope (based on a known rate) which produces the date the organic organism died. The results are calibrated to confirm accuracy. Therefore, a modern organism cannot be subjected to C14 analysis because the C14 it has absorbed has only begun to decay—and the half-life rate for C14 is over 5,000 years. In other words, if you date something modern, it will zero out.

In writing this, Harte, I am perfectly aware that you already know all of it. I'm just tired of dealing with Harsh face to face. I mean, I have no idea where he got that stuff Libby was supposed to have said. What in the hell are his sources? Like the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out.

The entire c14 dating process depends on the assumption that the rate of c14 radioisotope formation and decay has stabilised but that is not the case and even the correction applied is based on modern c14 level surveys,there was probably never a uniformity in the ratio.
This is just one of the bigger shortfalls of the c14 dating method.
Solar storms etc may affect the rate of radioisotope formation/decay etc.
The c14 dating method also assumes that the ratio of c14 radioisotope to regular carbon at the time the element was first created,which is again a very big assumption and is practically unfalsifiable.
There are a serious of anamolies that we come across for eg- the presence of c14 radioisotope in Diamionds etc,So in my opinion the method is far from definitive and a lot more has to go in before announcing that it is even remotely accurate in terms of the dating curve and not the process of estimating the c14 levels in the sample,which by itself is pretty accurate.

The c14 dating method should be renamed the c14 radioisotope estimation method...........the word 'dating' should be removed.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 November 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

The entire c14 dating process depends on the assumption that the rate of c14 radioisotope formation and decay has stabilised but that is not the case and even the correction applied is based on modern c14 level surveys,there was probably never a uniformity in the ratio.
This is just one of the bigger shortfalls of the c14 dating method.
Solar storms etc may affect the rate of radioisotope formation/decay etc.
The c14 dating method also assumes that the ratio of c14 radioisotope to regular carbon at the time the element was first created,which is again a very big assumption and is practically unfalsifiable.

As I stated, no such assumption has ever been made for C14.  C14 is not based on any assumption of equilibrium of C14 creation.  The very idea of what you stated is completely at odds with what is known about how C14 is created.  This was just explained to you only two posts prior to this one - and that's counting your last post - yet you make this inane statement again?

You ignore the facts, and the facts will ignore you.

So will this poster.

Kmt, thanks for acknowledging that I know about C14.  I know you know that I know - I think.

You should understand that I was looking for a reason to add that troll to my already-burgeoning ignore list. This just took my cake - insistance on a proven ignorant position - and on the same page of the thread where the ignorance was remedied!

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Harte, on 29 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

...

You ignore the facts, and the facts will ignore you.

That is very wise, Harte, not to mention catchy. I might just have to steal it from you.

Quote

Kmt, thanks for acknowledging that I know about C14.  I know you know that I know - I think.

You should understand that I was looking for a reason to add that troll to my already-burgeoning ignore list. This just took my cake - insistance on a proven ignorant position - and on the same page of the thread where the ignorance was remedied!

Harte

I have no idea where Harsh is getting this stuff, but it's definitely not from reputable scientific literature. Then again, that's what you get when your chief source seems to be creationist websites. I certainly am not an expert in physics but the science behind radiocarbon dating is pretty straight forward and relatively simple to understand. I mean, no person who's truly familiar with the proper science behind C14 dating would make pronouncements about the isotope "stabilizing," so where in the hell does that even come from?

[LRW]

It is known that certain temple complexes have been submerged underwater, it is not as if there is no evidence. The only drawback is that mainstream historians and debunkers deny the existence of such lost cities, why? because ancient lost cities underwater bring the mainstream history model crashing down to its knees, proving that mainstream history is incredibly misleading, ignorant and backwards. That picture is of a blatantly obvious submerged temple complex eroded through centuries. But mainstream historians reject the idea, because to entertain the idea of lost submerged continents containing temple complexes or just areas of coastlines containing lost temples submerged, is dangerous territory for the mainstream to accept with an open heart. They don't entertain it, because they know the existence of man-made submerged structures from the ancient world is devastating to their inaccurate misleading history models.

[orangepeaceful79]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

It is known that certain temple complexes have been submerged underwater, it is not as if there is no evidence. The only drawback is that mainstream historians and debunkers deny the existence of such lost cities, why? because ancient lost cities underwater bring the mainstream history model crashing down to its knees, proving that mainstream history is incredibly misleading, ignorant and backwards. That picture is of a blatantly obvious submerged temple complex eroded through centuries. But mainstream historians reject the idea, because to entertain the idea of lost submerged continents containing temple complexes or just areas of coastlines containing lost temples submerged, is dangerous territory for the mainstream to accept with an open heart. They don't entertain it, because they know the existence of man-made submerged structures from the ancient world is devastating to their inaccurate misleading history models.

Say what now?  Which scientists are pretending there aren't submerged ruins in the world?  I think you are creating a conspiracy where there isn't one.....can you back your assertions with some sort of citation or supporting evidence so we can see what you are talking about exactly?

[cormac mac airt]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

It is known that certain temple complexes have been submerged underwater, it is not as if there is no evidence. The only drawback is that mainstream historians and debunkers deny the existence of such lost cities, why? because ancient lost cities underwater bring the mainstream history model crashing down to its knees, proving that mainstream history is incredibly misleading, ignorant and backwards. That picture is of a blatantly obvious submerged temple complex eroded through centuries. But mainstream historians reject the idea, because to entertain the idea of lost submerged continents containing temple complexes or just areas of coastlines containing lost temples submerged, is dangerous territory for the mainstream to accept with an open heart. They don't entertain it, because they know the existence of man-made submerged structures from the ancient world is devastating to their inaccurate misleading history models.

Even the person who originally claimed it was a 10,000 year old monument, Professor Masaaki Kimura, now says it's only c.2500 years old. Not exactly ancient, by any stretch.

cormac

[LRW]

orangepeaceful79, on 03 December 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

Say what now?  Which scientists are pretending there aren't submerged ruins in the world?  I think you are creating a conspiracy where there isn't one.....can you back your assertions with some sort of citation or supporting evidence so we can see what you are talking about exactly?

I don't have to back up or proove anything to the likes of you and your ilk. I am stating an opinion, no one is forcing you to accept it or believe it. Whether or not there is evidence to support it or not is irrelevant. So called modern scientists and historians are also only expressing an opinion, their idea of evidence is only an idea based on their own interpretation, it does nescessarily mean they are correct in everything they say. All facts are only a matter of interpretation anyway. People also do not have to blindly believe everything the mainstream tells them.

Centuries ago, people believed the earth was not flat and they also had not much evidence to support their idea that the earth was a sphere. No one is forcing you to believe a different opinion, but you certainly seem perturbed and agitated by such an opinion. Which is very interesting indeed, considering how such an opinion can provoke a reaction in you.  

cormac mac airt, on 03 December 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Even the person who originally claimed it was a 10,000 year old monument, Professor Masaaki Kimura, now says it's only c.2500 years old. Not exactly ancient, by any stretch.  

cormac

Thats only his opinion, it does not necessarily mean that he is correct. Yet, you imply that he is correct in his 2500 year old monument guess. I would disagree that 2500 years is not ancient, i believe anything over 1000 years is ancient.

[cormac mac airt]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

I don't have to back up or proove anything to the likes of you and your ilk. I am stating an opinion, no one is forcing you to accept it or believe it. Whether or not there is evidence to support it or not is irrelevant. So called modern scientists and historians are also only expressing an opinion, their idea of evidence is only an idea based on their own interpretation, it does nescessarily mean they are correct in everything they say. All facts are only a matter of interpretation anyway. People also do not have to blindly believe everything the mainstream tells them.

Centuries ago, people believed the earth was not flat and they also had not much evidence to support their idea that the earth was a sphere. No one is forcing you to believe a different opinion, but you certainly seem perturbed and agitated by such an opinion. Which is very interesting indeed, considering how such an opinion can provoke a reaction in you.  




Thats only his opinion, it does not necessarily mean that he is correct. Yet, you imply that he is correct in his 2500 year old monument guess. I would disagree that 2500 years is not ancient, i believe anything over 1000 years is ancient.

It doesn't mean that you're right, either.

cormac

[Abramelin]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

It is known that certain temple complexes have been submerged underwater, it is not as if there is no evidence. The only drawback is that mainstream historians and debunkers deny the existence of such lost cities, why? because ancient lost cities underwater bring the mainstream history model crashing down to its knees, proving that mainstream history is incredibly misleading, ignorant and backwards. That picture is of a blatantly obvious submerged temple complex eroded through centuries. But mainstream historians reject the idea, because to entertain the idea of lost submerged continents containing temple complexes or just areas of coastlines containing lost temples submerged, is dangerous territory for the mainstream to accept with an open heart. They don't entertain it, because they know the existence of man-made submerged structures from the ancient world is devastating to their inaccurate misleading history models.

Bull.

"A unique discovery of submerged man-made structures on the seabed off Orkney could help find solutions to rising sea levels, experts have said."

"It is thought some of the structures may date back thousands of years."

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4361322

[orangepeaceful79]

LRW, on 03 December 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

I don't have to back up or proove anything to the likes of you and your ilk. I am stating an opinion, no one is forcing you to accept it or believe it. Whether or not there is evidence to support it or not is irrelevant. So called modern scientists and historians are also only expressing an opinion, their idea of evidence is only an idea based on their own interpretation, it does nescessarily mean they are correct in everything they say. All facts are only a matter of interpretation anyway. People also do not have to blindly believe everything the mainstream tells them.

Centuries ago, people believed the earth was not flat and they also had not much evidence to support their idea that the earth was a sphere. No one is forcing you to believe a different opinion, but you certainly seem perturbed and agitated by such an opinion. Which is very interesting indeed, considering how such an opinion can provoke a reaction in you.  




Thats only his opinion, it does not necessarily mean that he is correct. Yet, you imply that he is correct in his 2500 year old monument guess. I would disagree that 2500 years is not ancient, i believe anything over 1000 years is ancient.

Hey sir.   I wasn't asking you to prove anything I was asking for clarification because I didn't know what you were talking about.   Just asking for more information so I could understand you better.

You seem defensive.  I didn't challenge you or your opinion.  Ease up, tiger.