Jump to content


Photo

C14 Dated Remains Keep Yielding A Figure Close To 30K


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 December 2017 - 01:12 PM

 

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon.8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. 

Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.

Radiocarbon (14C) analysis

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias.

Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. 

This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0‰.9

This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem.

https://creation.com...cient-sandstone

 

Just strikes me as pretty weird that everything carbon dated as young seems to fall into the range of about 30K or thereabouts, like with the list Blitzking provided for 30K dinos. It seems this highly correlating, concordant data is significant, especially when found in purportedly, "old" rock.



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

https://creation.com...cient-sandstone
 
Just strikes me as pretty weird that everything carbon dated as young seems to fall into the range of about 30K or thereabouts, like with the list Blitzking provided for 30K dinos. It seems this highly correlating, concordant data is significant, especially when found in purportedly, "old" rock.


It should strike you weirder that all carbon remains in sedimentary layers don't cluster tightly around exactly the same date. For reference Blitzking's dino dates you mention range from 22 to 38k, which is equivalent to 1% and 7% C14 respectively. Why the variance if they were all buried at the same time, did the air contain a range of C14 levels depending on location in the pre flood world ? Actually that idea doesn't even work as the same bone varied by several thousands of years with multiple samples.

Not really "highly correlating, concordant data" is it. And of course, it will again fall on deaf ears but Pleistocene bones regularly produce >40k or infinite (no measureable C14) dates.

As for Snelling's wood date claim, this site provides a thorough take down.

 

http://gondwanaresea...crefaqs.htm#who

 

 



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 December 2017 - 03:29 PM

 

 

Wibble: It should strike you weirder that all carbon remains in sedimentary layers don't cluster tightly around exactly the same date. For reference Blitzking's dino dates you mention range from 22 to 38k, which is equivalent to 1% and 7% C14 respectively. Why the variance if they were all buried at the same time, did the air contain a range of C14 levels depending on location in the pre flood world ? Actually that idea doesn't even work as the same bone varied by several thousands of years with multiple samples.

 

That wouldn't work for any scenario, it's basically like saying this, "if those twenty people you asked to describe what Woody Allen looks like give you different descriptions, that means none of them know what he looks like". But we know that if they were given a bunch of photos they would likely all select the correct photograph.

 

I think the point is, you're really rather desperately nit-picking the exactitude of the dates which strikes me as unrealistic, because a much more important and indeed consequential point is that they all are giving only about 30K or thereabouts generally, in rock which is meant to be millions of years old. You can plead infinity to beyond but let's face it, there's always some C14 and shouldn't be if it's eons of evo.

 

 

 

Wibble: Not really "highly correlating, concordant data" is it. And of course, it will again fall on deaf ears but Pleistocene bones regularly produce >40k or infinite (no measureable C14) dates.

 

Yes but I shown you in the other thread plenty of examples without the infinity symbol and THAT fell on deaf ears. But we all know how bad your memory is already of course. :P

 

 

 

Wibble: As for Snelling's wood date claim, this site provides a thorough take down biased rant.

 

But I'm not reading it - you provide your own arguments, don't just paste a link of mumbo jumbo I have to trawl through. :gotcha:

 

Mischief complete. ;)



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 December 2017 - 04:00 PM

From a brief read over your linked material Wibble, unfortunately it seems the writers' writings are laced with subtle insinuations about Snelling not being a proper scientist or properly studying trifles. (a red herring designed to make we the readers dismiss Snelling based on character) One I saw through pretty much immediately.

 

This is implicit, he doesn't come out and argue a no-true-Scotsman but he isn't conscious of the fact that he is using subtle rhetoric to persuade the reader that Snelling shouldn't be trusted.

 

Note he keeps saying a careful scientist would do thus and so, but logically, a careful scientist/critical thinker, wouldn't depend on subtle character-assasinations, and persuading the audience that Snelling is sub-standard in some way so as to poison the well.

 

This is the problem with these evolutionists Wibble, as an exercise in reading their material, I never fail to find holes in the critical thinking they are using. The hole in this argument and a big one, is that it concentrates more on attacking Snelling and MAGNIFYING the possibility of contamination, but doesn't prove we don't have a young piece of wood, conclusively. In other words it's a lengthy attempt to sound like your side has smarter science, based on picking through the details but doesn't conclusively turn over anything because they also haven't proved it is an iron-contaminated metal remnant or whatever the thing is they witter on about it really being. 

 

My problem is this mate, 99.9% of the evolutionary articles I read all seem to contain some type of main focus on the person, the arguer, rather than the argument. If you removed the rhetorical gloss from this article I ask you this, what would you have left? You would have left this, a suggestion that it isn't wood despite indicators it might be, based on idicators it might not be. (essentially they are only doing the same thing Snelling done, conclude not X based on indicators where he concluded X based on indicators only they use the rhetorical device called PLAYING IT DOWN to ignore the indicators that suggest it is wood).

 

They use and abuse those nitty gritty scientific details and magnify them and pretend only they have understood them correctly and the rather superficial errors that are actually of little consequence, and ignore the fact that there really isn't any genuine reason to accept the contamination-excuse because the fact is this isn't the only example of young things, all of the other corroborating evidence such as soft-tissue, is also desperately argued to be contamination.

 

Perhaps I would be more impressed if contamination was a novel argument, instead of the unoriginal half-witted excuse of every selective, biased, evolutionary propagandist that is just desperate to make a statement they are scientifically smarter, so that we will be bamboozled into buying their bullshi*. We won't be, because we have saw Snelling's credentials on CMI, he has a science background. 



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 December 2017 - 04:06 PM

 

Wibble: It should strike you weirder that all carbon remains in sedimentary layers don't cluster tightly around exactly the same date. For reference Blitzking's dino dates you mention range from 22 to 38k, which is equivalent to 1% and 7% C14 respectively. Why the variance if they were all buried at the same time, did the air contain a range of C14 levels depending on location in the pre flood world ? Actually that idea doesn't even work as the same bone varied by several thousands of years with multiple samples.

 
That wouldn't work for any scenario, it's basically like saying this, "if those twenty people you asked to describe what Woody Allen looks like give you different descriptions, that means none of them know what he looks like". But we know that if they were given a bunch of photos they would likely all select the correct photograph.

 


Irrelevant analogy again. We're not talking about recollections of facial features, you said the dates were highly concordant. They aren't.
 

I think the point is, you're really rather desperately nit-picking the exactitude of the dates which strikes me as unrealistic, because a much more important and indeed consequential point is that they all are giving only about 30K or thereabouts generally, in rock which is meant to be millions of years old. You can plead infinity to beyond but let's face it, there's always some C14 and shouldn't be if it's eons of evo.


A 16k range is not "30k or thereabouts". The range is just a result of varying but tiny amounts of contamination turning an infinite date finite. And no there is not "always some C14" such as with the Pleistocene bones like I said, please cease with the blatant falsehoods.
 

Wibble: Not really "highly correlating, concordant data" is it. And of course, it will again fall on deaf ears but Pleistocene bones regularly produce >40k or infinite (no measureable C14) dates.

Yes but I shown you in the other thread plenty of examples without the infinity symbol and THAT fell on deaf ears. But we all know how bad your memory is already of course. :P

 


I don't know what "other thread" you are referring to but I reckon its a safe bet that whatever you said was not ignored (or already dealt with).
 

Wibble: As for Snelling's wood date claim, this site provides a thorough take down biased rant.

But I'm not reading it - you provide your own arguments, don't just paste a link of mumbo jumbo I have to trawl through. :gotcha:

 


If you are not prejudiced and open to the opposing view then you would read it. But then we all know your reading doesn't extend beyond CMI articles.

 

Edit: So you have given it a "brief read" during the time I was posting, after giving your post a similarly brief read I see that your prejudice is shining through. How about addressing the meat of the article rather than concentrating on your perception that the author is poisoning the well ?



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 December 2017 - 04:17 PM

:acigar:



#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 13 December 2017 - 04:51 PM

unoriginal half-witted excuse of every selective, biased, evolutionary propagandist that is just desperate to make a statement they are scientifically smarter, so that we will be bamboozled into buying their bullshi*. We won't be, because we have saw Snelling's credentials on CMI, he has a science background. [/font]


Whatever Snelling's credentials are, unfortunately is objectivity is zero because he signs up to the CMI statement of faith which includes:

"no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record"

 

Oh, am I "poisoning the well" ?



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 December 2017 - 05:07 PM

 

Wibble: Whatever Snelling's credentials are, unfortunately is objectivity is zero because he signs up to the CMI statement of faith which includes:


"no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record"

 

Oh, am I "poisoning the well" ?

 

Yes, you are poisoning the well because this won't affect the veracity of his arguments. Logically if you are a nazi this doesn't mean that you are wrong if you argue that cake tastes good. Think about it, if a scriptural record is true then the statement wouldn't matter anyway. All that statement is, is this; "we believe God created the world". Yes, evolutionists might not come out and state that atheism influences their science but are you naive enough to believe that isn't the case when people like Dawkins exist? And we know the inventors of evo, Darwin, Lyell, etc...were all avid unbelievers.

 

Secondly the only difference between Snelling's adherence to the statement of faith in the scripture, and an evolutionists', is the fact that the evolutionist doesn't have to make such a statement of loyalty to anti-God creation vocally, when he just has to play the, "I'm on the side of science" card, since his evolutionary beliefs are backed by the appearance of scientific legitimacy. So then no evolutionist has to tell the truth, they can just sit back in their lazy boy and live off of the reputation of having the science-stamp gloss their absurd story of how miraculous life invented itself.

 

"No interpretation of facts in any field, can be valid if it contradicts evolution." That is what they silently say while smoking their pipe at night sitting on the Darwinian lazy boy. :gotcha:

 

Those facts include plenty of things, such as 99.9% missing transitionals and various soft-tissue finds, planation, flat gaps, erosional remnants, miraculous levels of intelligent design in life, over-qualified design, water gaps and fast canyons but to mention a few of the facts that go against the fiction that tells us giraffes are related to bees, fleas, cheese and hairy knees.

 

So don't pretend the evolutionists don't have faith in evolution, we have all heard the great length of the conjectural stories they will write in order to escape it's obvious falsification. You have to be close to a crackpot to not believe that they would stick to the evolution story no matter what evidence is found against it. We have proof of that when in papers they say, "we now have to revise our understanding of evolution". Notice they never falsify evolution, only their understanding of it. If we are to go then on their understanding of it, they haven't understood it properly yet given how many times they've change their story, so why should we accept what they say?

 

So which one is it, either evolution is truly falsified, or their understanding has been falsified so much that their scientific judgment has the monetary value of half a peanut.

 

:rotfl3: 



#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 16 December 2017 - 05:20 PM

Yes, you are poisoning the well because this won't affect the veracity of his arguments. Logically if you are a nazi this doesn't mean that you are wrong if you argue that cake tastes good. Think about it, if a scriptural record is true then the statement wouldn't matter anyway. All that statement is, is this; "we believe God created the world". Yes, evolutionists might not come out and state that atheism influences their science but are you naive enough to believe that isn't the case when people like Dawkins exist? And we know the inventors of evo, Darwin, Lyell, etc...were all avid unbelievers.


Of course it affects the veracity of Snelling’s arguments if he is forced to twist, ignore and shoehorn facts into an incompatible worldview. Think about it, if the scriptural record is false (hint: it is) then he is compelled to always be wrong in his interpretations because he thinks he already has the truth, so it is impossible for any evidence he comes across, or his shown, to change his mind one iota (much like you).

Fortunately, great scientists like Darwin and Lyell were not hamstrung by this back to front way of thinking and allowed their conclusions to follow the evidence. And contrary to your attempt to poison the well, they were not atheists. So your reasoning fails right there.
 

"No interpretation of facts in any field, can be valid if it contradicts evolution." That is what they silently say while smoking their pipe at night sitting on the Darwinian lazy boy.


Let me know when you find a fact that does contradict evolution, then we can see if your assertion holds any water. A bird in the Carboniferous would do it, or….. well you’ve heard it enough times now to know the many, many things that you should easily be able to show if instantaneous creation and global flood induced catastrophe was correct without having to resort to silly excuses to explain away your massive problem.
 

Those facts include plenty of things, such as 99.9% missing transitionals and various soft-tissue finds, planation, flat gaps, erosional remnants, miraculous levels of intelligent design in life, over-qualified design, water gaps and fast canyons but to mention a few of the facts that go against the fiction.


I’ve addressed several times your missing transitionals strawman. Planation, flat gaps etc. - you seem to think that the mere stating of these things for which you have never properly explained why they are such a problem for evolution is a compelling argument. What on earth are “fast canyons” ? Is it something that explains how fast flowing water can rapidly produce a tight meander in soft sediment as for the GC ? :rotfl3:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users