Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
297 replies to this topic

#281 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:22 PM

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 

 

Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?

 

Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.

Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

 

Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."

 

"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"

 

So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14. 

 

From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.

Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.

 

The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.

 

This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.

 

You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years.  Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that.  There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.

 

A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist.  Nor is it "conceivable."  Not without destruction of the sample.

 

 

 

Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists.  Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations.  It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.

 

For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable.  They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay. 



#282 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:55 PM

BK, what I get from this personally, is that the dates are a bunch of mish-mashed, disparate codswallop anyway. Even for the young ages they all seem to differ, I think it is far stronger evidence of youth that the soft tissues exist, we know that collagen, cartilage and DNA have all been measured, their decays rates precisely extrapolated.

Seriously?

 

Biological decay rates are subject to at least a half-dozen external factors.  You can't tell from the state of biological decay if a sample died 5 months or 5,000 years ago.

Go ahead and show where they have been "precisely extrapolated."  Show the studies where biological decay has been used to establish age.

 

On the other hand, more than a century of testing has shown nothing (short of a nuclear chain reaction) that will significantly impact nuclear decay rates.  They have been measured and "their decay rates precisely extrapolated."  We can verify their stability back thru time by spectral analysis of decay rates in the light of distant stars.  For example, the spectra of Sn1987a shows a decay rate for 56Co consistent with what is observed on Earth today.

 

Yet you embrace the more volatile, least precise ways of age determination over one that is based on one of the most stable processes in the universe.

 

.... and that, I suppose, is the more "logical" approach.



#283 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:15 PM

?
Another matter that has to be sorted out is why we would give higher credence to radiometric dating methods (given for example how hard it is to verify that a stone is 100 million years old or not) over knowledge of how decay of organic structures work. What reason would we have to do that?

Because the rate of biological decay is subject to multiple external factors including:  temperature, humidity, pH.  Nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly.  Further, they can be verified back in time by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.

 

What reason would we have to give higher credence to the less stable process over the more stable one as a means to establish dates?



#284 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:26 PM

It isn't only the t-Rex tissue but Armitage's case of the soft tissue in a dino horn, even Piasan said his work was excellent when he seemed to acknowledge how meticulous Armitage was in ruling out contamination and other factors. But there are also less known, less popular cases. 

To clarify:

 

My comment had nothing to do with Armitage's work on the dino horn.  It was a statement based on evidence entered in his legal case that his performance reviews indicated he did excellent work.



#285 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:27 PM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.

 

There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.

 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.

 

 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.

 

 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!
Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.


#286 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 September 2017 - 10:48 PM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.
 
There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.
 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.
 
 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.
 
 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!

Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.

"BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy)have anything to do with biological evolution."

But that didnt seem to stop you from bringing it into this conversation about the age of the Dinosaurs for some unknown reason I see..LOL..


"Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts. When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.

"And God streched out the heavens (Over 14 times) maybe you should listen to him.. (Hint, he knows more than even YOU do about HIS creation).. Hard to believe Im sure..

NOW

Explain to us how the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve fit into your Billions of Years of Evolution.. This is going to be real good..

Oh, That's right.. I have already asked you many times and you go away for awhile only to pop your head up like one of those moles at the arcade only to be hammered down again with my questions that you never answer NEXT!

Sadly, Theistic Evolutionists are either Dishonest or Delusional.. Either way, it is impossible to have an honest debate with them..


‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’ American Atheist


“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

#287 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:13 AM

 

?
Another matter that has to be sorted out is why we would give higher credence to radiometric dating methods (given for example how hard it is to verify that a stone is 100 million years old or not) over knowledge of how decay of organic structures work. What reason would we have to do that?

Because the rate of biological decay is subject to multiple external factors including:  temperature, humidity, pH.  Nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly.  Further, they can be verified back in time by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.
 
What reason would we have to give higher credence to the less stable process over the more stable one as a means to establish dates?

 

 

But don't you understand Piasan. It's about giving credence to what can be empirically verified and tested (decay of organic structures) and what can not be emiprically verified and tested (radiometric dating methods). It's more problematic than that, because when the opportunity have risen the radiometric dating methods have not always been successfully verified (recent stone formation).

There are three aspects of this:

1 - It's not that the rate of biological decay can vary that is the problem, but how long it would take for organic structures to decay at the slowest rate. It's two separate questions.
2 - Your assurance that 'nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly' is as much uniform philosophy as it is science. We can't test that in a lab.
3 - The Bible do side with the thought that dinosaurs did live with humans (Job 40:15-24).

So it seems that from both a scientific and biblical perspective we have all the reasons to actually give higher credence to our knowledge of how decay of organic structures work.



#288 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 September 2017 - 03:19 AM

 

 

Piasan: My comment had nothing to do with Armitage's work on the dino horn.  It was a statement based on evidence entered in his legal case that his performance reviews indicated he did excellent work.

 

Hardly makes my point weaker does it? It seems we are in agreement his work was excellent and in the thread we discussed it in my memory was you acknowledged that excellence in the dino horn work, or that's the impression I got. I even remember BK saying to you, "his works excellent but you won't accept it?" or something along those lines.

 

Piasan, his work was peer reviewed, there is simply no need to doubt it. If I say you said his work is excellent and you say you also say his work was excellent, are we really in disagreement? Please don't tell me you have caught quote-mining-disease, where the evolutionist believes in the following axiom;

 

"If a creationist says X is true do not listen, but if an evolutionist says X is true we can accept it."

 

Piasan, we are both saying X, what then are you saying, that I can't say that you said his work is excellent even though you do? Do you think you will catch a disease if you agree with me on a trivial point?

 

As for the dating methods, I would say that I don't agree they are of significance because of the reasons Tirian explained. I can understand if evolutionists may think we give C14 extra credit. We do, though we don't accept it necessarily tests accurately. But we treat it differently not because we are special pleading on behalf of a young earth but because there is an important corroborative factor involved.

 

What is that factor? That factor is recorded human history.(documented). C14 dates things even a thousand or 2 thousand years old meaning we can compare the dates you get for C14 to recorded history. This is not so with K-Ar dating or Ar-Ar, or whatever.

 

So C14 can actually be measured against another method of measuring. But it can only be measured against recorded human history, nothing beyond it, and that's roughly about 6,000 years. :gotcha:



#289 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 September 2017 - 10:41 AM

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

in my opinion, the only thing that will dispel the concept of god will be the creation of life in the lab.
i don't look for it to happen.

todays diversity DID NOT arrive here by bits and pieces (gradual accumulation).
evidence suggests that the epigenome was operational even BEFORE eukaryote super groups
this is almost certain proof the cell arrived here fully formed.

#290 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 September 2017 - 11:35 AM

“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

in my opinion, the only thing that will dispel the concept of god will be the creation of life in the lab.i don't look for it to happen.todays diversity DID NOT arrive here by bits and pieces (gradual accumulation).evidence suggests that the epigenome was operational even BEFORE eukaryote super groupsthis is almost certain proof the cell arrived here fully formed.


"in my opinion, the only thing that will dispel the concept of god will be the creation of life in the lab."


How can intelligence agents somehow managing to create life in a special lab utilizing AVAILABLE chemicals possibly dispel the concept of a grand intelligence agent (God) creating life EX NILO in the beginning?


"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

#291 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 September 2017 - 11:46 AM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.
 
There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.
 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.
 
 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.
 
 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!

Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.


"Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?"

Because we ALSO HAVE corraborating hard data of red blood cells and soft tissue, (Which we dont with diamonds) a double whammy that puts the knife into the heart of darwins rabid dog.. (Along with my NEVER ANSWERED question asking for a plausible ORDER of the 10 Vital organs required for the slow evolution of microbe to microbiogist..)

#292 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 September 2017 - 12:38 PM

. . . the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

as far as abiogenesis goes, we don't even have a working hypothesis.
the closest we have come is the RNA world, and it doesn't work.

personally, the only reason i can't say impossible is because i've found nothing that proves it impossible.
however, the co-evolution of 2 independent codes seems highly unlikely.
it's almost laughable to say this stuff came together of its own accord.

#293 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 September 2017 - 01:08 PM

 

 

What If: personally, the only reason i can't say impossible is because i've found nothing that proves it impossible....it's almost laughable to say this stuff came together of its own accord

 

I just think you need to think it through more. Is something an entertainable notion if we can't find a technical impossibility? Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that if something it not impossible technically that this means it is just improbable but can happen.

 

In fact according to what C.S.Lewis said, I would put it like this; some things are intrinsically impossible but other things although are possible, can only be qualified as possible conditionally

 

We might call this impossibleU.  Which would stand for, "impossible, unless X cause."

 

In other words, it would usually be impossible except for a certain scenario which tends to not exist in that given situation.

 

To make this understandable, think of this analogy; It is impossibleU monkeys built the pyramids. Unless what? Unless aliens arrived on earth and genetically modified an isolated group of monkeys, and programmed them to be builders.

 

Even though this isn't impossible, technically, in this particular situation, there is no need to ever take the "U" seriously.

 

So then there are things which basically are impossible, unless there is a teleological factor involved.

 

Imagine now in a rucksack we have a battery with a standard JST male connector and a device with a female JST connector. Under what circumstance could they join? Only with a teleological factor. (They would only connect if they were connected on purpose).

 

Yes, it's possible a certain manipulating force could connect them, it isn't an impossible thing, but for the sake of rationalism, it is basically impossible, "unless" a manipulating force (a person) connects them. Otherwise we know that for 100 lifetimes the battery would never connect, even though it is perfectly possible.

 

So then;

 

It is not technically impossible WITH teleology but seems to be impossible under all other circumstances.

 

In the same way, it seems life is impossible UNLESS there is teleology. (It is created on purpose)

 

Since this is in every day life, the cause of many seemingly impossible things, why can't if be for life?

 

This is perfectly rational.



#294 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:45 PM

I just think you need to think it through more. Is something an entertainable notion if we can't find a technical impossibility? Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that if something it not impossible technically that this means it is just improbable but can happen.
 
In fact according to what C.S.Lewis said, I would put it like this; some things are intrinsically impossible but other things although are possible, can only be qualified as possible conditionally
 
We might call this impossibleU.  Which would stand for, "impossible, unless X cause."

if something has been proved impossible then that's the end.
it's impossible to divide by zero, end of story, there are no conditions.
it's impossible for fractals to actually exist, it's impossible to have a finite area bounded by an infinite perimeter.

if it's deemed impossible for life to arise naturally then i don't care how many aliens come down here.
all the swishing, swirling, and technical equipment isn't going to make it happen.

impossible doesn't mean it might be possible.
don't confuse improbable with impossible.
it's highly improbable i would find you in a brothel, but not impossible.

#295 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 September 2017 - 04:01 PM

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 
Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?
 
Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.
Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

 
Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."
 
"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"
 
So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14. 
 
From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.
Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.
 
The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.
 
This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.
 
You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years.  Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that.  There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.
 
A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist.  Nor is it "conceivable."  Not without destruction of the sample.
 
 
 

Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists.  Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations.  It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.
 
For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable.  They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay.


"Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old."

That MIGHT make sense if they DIDNT place the 9000 year old date before it.. If YOUR explanation is true, Why wouldnt they just say > 9000 years old and leave it at that??? Why on Earth would they include the 53,000 year old date? That defies logic and reason.. Think man.. THINK.!!!

#296 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 25 September 2017 - 04:48 PM

 

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 

 
Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?
 
Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.
Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

 
Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."
 
"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"
 
So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14. 
 
From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.
Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.
 
The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.
 
This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.
 
You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years.  Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that.  There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.
 
A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist.  Nor is it "conceivable."  Not without destruction of the sample.
 
 
 

Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists.  Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations.  It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.
 
For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable.  They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay.


"Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old."

That MIGHT make sense if they DIDNT place the 9000 year old date before it.. If YOUR explanation is true, Why wouldnt they just say > 9000 years old and leave it at that??? Why on Earth would they include the 53,000 year old date? That defies logic and reason.. Think man.. THINK.!!!

 

 

Probably because the 53,000 years represents the sensitivity of the equipment and method that they are using, e.g., that is its specifications.  Organic material that is younger than 53,000 years should have enough C14 remaining to accurately detect and measure (and then calculate the age of the material via the C12 to C14 ratio) with their equipment.  Material that is older than 53,000 years.....probably not....



#297 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 September 2017 - 05:09 PM

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?

Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."
"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"
So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14.
From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.
Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old. This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.

The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample. All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.

This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.

You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years. Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that. There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.

A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist. Nor is it "conceivable." Not without destruction of the sample.


Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists. Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations. It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.

For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable. They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay.
"Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old."
That MIGHT make sense if they DIDNT place the 9000 year old date before it.. If YOUR explanation is true, Why wouldnt they just say > 9000 years old and leave it at that??? Why on Earth would they include the 53,000 year old date? That defies logic and reason.. Think man.. THINK.!!!

Probably because the 53,000 years represents the sensitivity of the equipment and method that they are using, e.g., that is its specifications. Organic material that is younger than 53,000 years should have enough C14 remaining to accurately detect and measure (and then calculate the age of the material via the C12 to C14 ratio) with their equipment. Material that is older than 53,000 years.....probably not....

Sounds VERY incredible .. They claim >9000 to >53,000 YET You claim that they must be 100,000,000 because the ages are needed for evolution to work IN SPITE OF Soft Tissue, Red Blood Cells, Collagen, and Blood Vessels? Because why? Because it is asserted in biology textbooks and that many scientists cant be wrong?

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

#298 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 September 2017 - 09:33 PM

 

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 

Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.
 
The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.
 
This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.
That MIGHT make sense if they DIDNT place the 9000 year old date before it.. If YOUR explanation is true, Why wouldnt they just say > 9000 years old and leave it at that??? Why on Earth would they include the 53,000 year old date? That defies logic and reason.. Think man.. THINK.!!!

These papers aren't exactly written to an 8th grade level like popular media is.  There is an expectation that you will know and understand the terminology and semantics of the relevant science.  Usually at an advanced level.

 

I didn't go to the source paper.  As I understand it, there were some 360 samples tested.  It is normal to provide a range of ages for the group.  In the abstract or introduction, this would be stated something like:  "There were 360 samples tested with results ranging from 9000 +/-30 to >53400. ybp"  

 

In the pages of the paper, those tests are discussed in much more detail.  In some papers, an itemized list of each sample including its identification, source, type of material, and test results is provided.  With that many samples, it's more likely test results will be grouped or graphed in some way.

 

To think that researchers would be satisfied with merely ">9000" defies logic and reason.  These guys are experts communicating with each other in their field of expertise.

 

Think man...  THINK !!!






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 1 anonymous users